Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Local Government Finance

Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about local government finance since July.

Mr. Litherland: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about local government finance since July.

The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): We have received many representations on various aspects of local government finance since July. These have included representations from 150 authorities about the provisional local government finance settlement.

Ms Eagle: Is the Minister aware that my authority, the Wirral, is expected to make £12·5 million-worth of cuts in its expenditure this year, which is in addition to the cuts of £53 million that have been demanded of it over the past four years? Is it credible for the Minister to maintain that cuts of that magnitude demanded by the Government do not mean that there will be cuts to front-line services when that is clearly not the case? Our services in local government are being decimated.

Mr. Curry: The hon. Lady has got it wrong. The only possible meaning of a cut is that the budget that her local authority will set for 1994–95 is less than that set for 1993–94. That is not true. Wirral local authority will be able to increase its budget by 1·25 per cent. What it will have to do is cut the budget that it would like to have had. It will have cut its wish budget, which is entirely different from its actual budget. Wirral is not an authority which has to cut its budget in real terms. Only seven authorities are in that category.

Mr. Litherland: Did any of the representations query how vast amounts of public money could be found for prestigious projects, such as the Manchester Olympic bid, which bring kudos and publicity to the Government when, at the same time, vicious cuts for local authorities mean the closing of school playgrounds, swimming baths, pets corners and other leisure amenities? Does not the Minister think that there is a stench of hypocrisy?

Mr. Curry: I do not recall that. However, I recall that a report commissioned by Birmingham council stated that

Birmingham had indulged in some prestige buildings when it should have spent its money on education. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might think about that one.

Mr. Pickles: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 375, which refers to local government finance? Does he agree that all hon. Members must lead by example? Does he believe that Opposition Members who preach about local government finance are handicapped by the behaviour of the councils of the Leader of the Opposition and his deputy? Does my hon. Friend look forward with me to the days when good local government returns to Derbyshire county council and to Monklandsgate?

Mr. Curry: The lesson is that Opposition Members should be careful before they start hurling accusations about councils. There has been a pattern of accusations against authorities. There have been local authorities in respect of which the auditor is not yet satisfied with the accounts, and those include a large number of Labour councils. People should cast the motes out of their own eyes before they level accusations elsewhere. We have a common interest in making sure that local government acts with probity. The sooner we recognise that common interest, the better it will be for everybody.

Mr. Bates: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to improve local government finance is to have unitary authorities? Will he accept the thanks of my constituents for the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday to abolish Cleveland county council? Will he join me in condemning the decision by Cleveland county council to challenge that decision in the court, at a cost of tens of thousands of pounds to council tax payers, in a vain attempt to save its own neck?

Mr. Curry: If Cleveland thinks that it should spend its charge payers' money by going to court, that is a decision for Cleveland. We implemented the proposals and the provisional and final recommendations of the Boundary Commission. The district councils made strong, articulate representations about how they would carry forward the business of that region, and they were extremely convincing. That is why we implemented the proposals. We will judge every case on its merits according to entirely objective criteria based on the needs of the local electorate and charge payers.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I, as the original objector to the sale of the Westminster cemeteries, which led to Mr. Magill's first report, and one of the objectors to designated sales, ask the Minister what action is being taken to ensure that Westminster council no longer wastes ratepayers' money? Do the Government have power to send in a commissioner to make sure that our interests as ratepayers are protected by those Conservative councillors?

Mr. Curry: If we had, we would have done so in respect of Lambeth a long time ago.

Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that those who criticise some local authorities would do better to direct their concern at authorities that waste money, overspend disgracefully, do not collect council house rents, leave houses empty and do not collect their council tax, and that most of those authorities are Labour controlled?

Mr. Curry: Yes.

Mr. Henderson: Let me refer the Minister to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) about real cuts. Is he embarrassed by the comments of the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), in May 1993, when he wrote to the Treasury saying that, in the financial year 1994–95, a 5·2 per cent. increase in total standard spending was necessary to protect—

Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is paraphrasing and not quoting.

Mr. Henderson: Indeed, I am, Madam Speaker, and I am about to paraphrase even more in my final paragraph.
Comparing that figure with the 2·3 per cent. increase in total standard spending which is allowed in this year's Budget, will the Minister admit that he has surrendered to the Treasury or say that he needs a "back to basics" course in arithmetic?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is clearly in fine form. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It took a long time to get that one from Opposition Back-Bench Members, I have to say.
The settlement that we have put forward is fair and reasonable and, in the economic circumstances, one with which local government can cope if it is sensible. That is the reflection of independent commentators such as Mr. Tony Travers on the matter, and that is a perfectly reasonable position.

Regional Offices

Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when a single regional office for all Government Departments in London will be established.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): The new regional office for London will come into being in April.

Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new regional offices will be widely welcomed as bringing decisions closer to the community, not only in London but elsewhere, and will be particularly welcomed in Lancashire, where they will provide better liaison with the new unitary authorities, which we hope will come about sooner rather than later so that we can get rid of that high-spending county council as quickly as possible?

Mr. Gummer: Bringing together the various offices of government in London and elsewhere will enable decisions to be made in a much more holistic way, rather than individual decisions being on made matters that should be considered together. Advice will, therefore, come in that unitary manner. It will be for the commission to make its proposals for Lancashire, but I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will have views that he will want to make clearly.

Mr. Vaz: Although the House will welcome better co-ordination between Government Departments—for many years, the Labour party has put forward that policy and it has now been accepted by the Government—does the Secretary of State realise that his plans are fatally flawed in two respects? First, not one extra penny of resources will be allocated to London to deal with the problems that Londoners face and to enable our capital city to compete with the best cities in the world. Secondly, his plans do not go one step towards creating what the people

of London really want—a properly elected and democratically accountable government for London. Why are the right hon. Gentleman and the Government so afraid of democracy?

Mr. Gummer: First, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has forgotten the curmudgeonly way in which his more senior colleague welcomed the change when it was introduced. Indeed, he did as much as he could to attack it as being unsatisfactory. I see that Labour Members have already changed their minds about whether we are right.
Secondly, I was surprised that, on that occasion, I was accused of hiding cuts in London's budgets in that I was not going to deliver the amount of money which was proposed. In fact, I have delivered every penny of it, so Labour Members were entirely wrong in that slur.
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman says that we are not spending the money in comparison with other countries. Interestingly, in a recent survey, French voters in Paris nominated London as one of the finest cities in Europe providing services better than those provided in Paris—the city in which they live.
The fourth point that the hon. Gentleman dares to raise is the suggestion that anyone in his right mind would want the Greater London council back again. If we ask people in London—even those who believe in a Greater London council—what they want, none of them put this at the top of the list; they want a lot of more sensible things first. There will always be some people who forget that billions more pounds would have been wasted if we had continued to have the GLC, whose stewardship of London, especially London transport, was a disgrace that none of us will forget.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Following my right hon. Friend's robust and welcome remarks, will he assure my constituents that under no circumstances will there be a repeat of the Greater London council or anything like it under this or any other Conservative Government? We cannot afford it.

Mr. Gummer: The Government will continue to deal with the real problems in London and leave it to Labour Members to hide the absence of a policy with a continuous nostalgia for one of the worst systems of local government that we have seen.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what views he has received from the Audit Commission on his provisional proposals for distribution of standard spending assessments.

Mr. Curry: None.

Mr. Ainsworth: Is the Minister aware that in the document "Passing the Bucks", the Audit Commission says that many of the decisions taken on grant distribution are political and there is no adequate explanation for the criteria used? When will we end the year-on-year manipulation of the grant system? In April, people up and down the country will face cuts in their budgets and increases in their taxes. In Coventry, the average will be £57, with £3 million in cuts. When will we have fair taxes at the local level?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is saying that the whole system of distribution—the standing spending assessment system—is rigged politically. The Select Committee on the Environment will report on that, and I will bet the hon. Gentleman that there will be no reference whatever to the rigging of the system. What is more, the Audit Commission does not say that.
It is perfectly legitimate to have a political argument about how much money is available for local authorities, but we shall not have a political argument about the mechanisms of distribution because we do our best to ensure that they are fair, dispassionate, objective and up to date. All the councils that have come to see me—58 councils have been through our doors in the past few weeks —have accepted that.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am delighted that there have been no representations to my hon. Friend. The city council in my area is delighted with its standard spending assessment, although, of course, the county council is not pleased and is grousing fit to burst. Does my hon. Friend accept that we who run our affairs properly are delighted?

Mr. Curry: I am grateful to have had the opportunity to give my hon. Friend such pleasure.

Ecolabelling

Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about how many products now have ecolabelling in the United Kingdom.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): On Thursday 25 November the United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board awarded the first European Community ecolabels to Hoover Ltd. for three washing machines in its New Wave range. Environmental criteria have also been adopted for dishwashers.

Mr. Bennett: I welcome the Minister to his new post, but he takes over a pretty sorry tale as far as ecolabelling is concerned. It is clear that about one third of shoppers would be happy to purchase products that were environmentally friendly, but they have become increasingly disillusioned by false claims. It is almost four years since the Government promised that they would have a proper system in place. Is not it appallingly slow progress to have virtually one award every year for four years? Can the Minister tell us how many more awards there will be in the next 12 months?

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I think that it is right and proper for me to place on record my appreciation of, and thanks to, my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), for the sterling work that he did for environmental and rural interests. He can be proud of his ministerial achievements.
The hon. Gentleman has raised the matter of ecolabelling on numerous occasions, and he is right to do so. We are in the forefront of those pressing for a Community-wide system as a result of pressure from my predecessors, and indeed the pressure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will continue to bring to bear. The hon. Gentleman cannot expect us to operate a separate system, which would be clearly counterproductive in the context of the EC.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I welcome my hon. Friend to his post. In his time as a Northern Ireland Minister, my hon. Friend had experience of being grilled by the Select Committee on the Environment, and I can promise him just as much in his new post.
Does my hon. Friend agree that making sure that false environmental claims are not made about products is equally as important as ecolabelling? Will he therefore ensure that talks with the DTI deliver a reform of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 in that regard as soon as possible?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend makes an entirely fair point, and I am grateful to him for his kind wishes. We are in conversation with the DTI, and I know from my own experience how important it is that the information that is provided on any product fits in with the Trade Descriptions Act. I know that the DTI is fully aware of our concern and of the concern of the consumer.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will animal testing now be definitely included in the ecolabelling process? The Government had apparently said that they were willing for animal testing to be included, but that has not been formally confirmed. Will there be across-the-board acceptable criteria and standards? When will the Minister conclude his discussions with the voluntary sector so that a general agreement can be made?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I know that the Commission is considering the matter and, as he will understand, I am not yet in a position to make a detailed judgment or statement on where the Commission stands. Certainly the Commission is interested in that, and the ecolabelling board in the United Kingdom is also aware of the concern. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that there is more of an ethical argument than an environmental argument over animal testing, and that is a part of the problem that we have to consider. I shall give the matter my urgent attention.

Sir Roger Moate: Is it not more important to get ecolabelling right than to be rushed into premature judgments? Will my hon. Friend take particularly seriously the representations of the paper industry to ensure that any system of ecolabelling does not work to the disadvantage of British producers of what is an environmentally friendly and eminently recyclable product?

Mr. Atkins: What my hon. Friend says is right. It is essential that we have a standard that is applicable throughout the European Union. In those circumstances, it is better to take time and get it right, recognising that there is legitimate pressure from the consumer and from Conservative and Opposition Members that we should do so as quickly as possible.

Subsidiarity

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce the principle of subsidiarity to relations between central Government and local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gummer: I have made clear my commitment to the principle of subsidiarity and the delegation of responsibility not only from central Government to local


authorities but from local authorities to the lowest possible level, consistent with efficiency, including locally managed and grant-maintained schools.

Mr. Wareing: Alone among European Community members, Britain has a highly centralised government machine in which local self-government has been almost completely destroyed. I hope that the Minister will take on board the feelings of many people in Britain that it is time that local self-government was restored. People are fed up with the creation of quangos staffed by a Tory nomenklatura that will have to be swept away by the next Labour Government. I hope that when he talks about subsidiarity in the sweet terms that he does—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have not yet heard the hon. Gentleman ask a question. Is there one coming into view?

Mr. Wareing: You will remembers, Madam Speaker, that I asked the Minister when he would restore local self-government—or is subsidiarity to be conceded only to Wandsworth and Westminster?

Mr. Gummer: I remind the hon. Gentleman that as Minister for Local Government and now as Secretary of State for the Environment, I pioneered, and fought for, the extension of local government powers by passing community care to local government rather than to any other system. That major extension of local government powers will be completed.
I am interested to see that subsidiarity stops where the hon. Gentleman is. When he talks about subsidiarity, he means that is should stop at the local authority. Why is not the hon. Gentleman fighting for more grant-maintained schools in Liverpool, so that schools can run themselves, instead of insisting that the local authority bosses them about?

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that local authorities are able to spend more than three quarters of all the money that they have, without any specific grants? Will he further confirm that the Government will continue the policy of caring capping, which means that we shall not allow local authorities to spend and waste money and we shall continue to protect ratepayers with capping?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend underlines that the reason why we have capping is that some local authorities, including the Liverpool authority that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) supported, behaved in the most disgraceful manner and found it impossible to manage their finances properly. Therefore, I should like to see more and more freedom for the local authorities that are prepared to be responsible in the use of their money. That is why I fought for, and will continue to fight for, the extension of local authority powers, particularly in the caring services through community care.

Mr. Straw: On the issue of subsidiarity between one authority—Westminster—and central Government, and as Dame Shirley Porter said on the radio that she could not remember whether she had consulted the Government about Westminster's housing and poll tax policies, will the Secretary of State confirm that at the material time, Ministers were, indeed, working in league with

Westminster and Wandsworth councils in their gerrymandering efforts and were gerrymandering grant to those local authorities just at the time when the authorities were gerrymandering for votes?
The Minister of State said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) that the grant arrangements were objective and dispassionate. Will the Secretary of State say whether the decision to give Wandsworth £33 million of the £390 million available in council tax reduction schemes comes within that category? If it does, how can it be that one authority representing about half of one per cent. of the country's population ended up with 8 per cent. of the grant—16 times its entitlement?

Mr. Gummer: Because Wandsworth has the largest cut in grant and, therefore, attracts a larger amount of the damping system which covers all London boroughs and especially benefits Labour London boroughs. It is rare that I have to say this and I shall say it directly to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] He may find it amusing to accuse people of organising a system that cannot be run in that way. His local authority associations were fully consulted on the laying down of the SSA system and they know that it is entirely objective. They asked for the damping system that he attacks. He knows that to be absolutely true and he is a disgrace to his party.

Rough Sleepers

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made with helping people sleeping rough in central London.

The Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction (Sir George Young): The Government have spent £96 million since 1990 to provide almost 3,500 places in temporary and permanent accommodation and to help people sleeping rough in central London. Independent research shows that our rough sleepers initiative has housed several thousand people with a history of sleeping rough. We have provided a further £86 million to continue the initiative until March 1996. A count by voluntary sector agencies last November found 287 people sleeping rough in central London, compared with estimates of more than 1,000 before the initiative began.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my right hon. Friend for that extremely welcome news, but does he agree that it is disappointing that the Labour party persists in putting forward their own campaign—[Interruption.]—persists in making cheap political capital at the expense of the small number of unfortunate people still sleeping on the streets? How many extra beds were made available during the recent spell of cold weather and what percentage was taken up?

Sir George Young: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the many voluntary organisations—especially Church-based organisations—that have done first-class work in achieving the reduction in numbers to which she rightly referred. It is encouraging that, according to the last count undertaken by voluntary associations in November, only three people under the age of 18 were sleeping rough. During the cold spell at the end of November, which was one of the coldest in London, extra emergency beds were opened—I think 150—and the maximum number taken up on any one night was 55.

Mr. Tony Banks: Why are there so many more people sleeping on the streets of London than in any other European city? Does not the Minister feel any shame about the fact that, in this year of 1994, so many thousands of our young people are sleeping on the streets of London?

Sir George Young: I do not know which European cities the hon. Gentleman visits.

Mr. Tony Banks: I said all of them.

Sir George Young: I do not know which cities the hon. Gentleman visits, but I made it absolutely clear that the regular counts by voluntary organisations—not by the Government—show a reduction from 1,000 three years ago to 287 in November, of which only three were under 18. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that progress has been made and that he will encourage voluntary organisations to drive forward the programme. I also hope that, from time to time, he will accept that the Government do good work on housing.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there are empty hostel beds in London today and that there are thousands of empty council houses in Newham, Islington, Lambeth and other Labour-controlled boroughs? Is it not sheer hypocrisy for the Labour party to complain that there are people sleeping rough when Labour councils are the most inefficient housing authorities in London?

Sir George Young: Indeed, I hope that hon. Members who visit European cities will also find the time to visit some of the authorities in London that have large numbers of empty local authority homes. If one goes past an empty council house in London, the chances are that it is owned by a Labour local authority.

Mr. Battle: I recognise that there is some temporary assistance for the homeless in London, but, instead of scapegoating single mothers in his homeless review, making the victims pay the price for his failed housing policies and redefining away the homeless, as the Government have the unemployed, why does not the Minister tackle the causes of the housing and homelessness crisis? There are 1 million people with negative equity, 500,000 people with mortgage arrears, 1·5 million on local authority waiting lists, 150,000 statutorily homeless people and 63,000 people in temporary accommodation. Will not he accept the acute and absolute shortage of homes to rent and acknowledge that Labour authorities have the most effective housing record—[Interruption.] Of the 25 housing authorities named by the Minister in December, 11 were Labour, four were Tory and one of those named was Westminster. The truth is that Conservative Governments and Conservative councils keep houses empty. Is not it because Labour housing authorities are better that the Minister will not allow Labour local authorities the right to build the much-needed homes to rent?

Sir George Young: I was grateful for the first half-sentence of the hon. Gentleman's remarks when he made a rather grudging recognition that some achievements have been made. When he sees the Government's consultation document on access to social housing tomorrow, he will see that no one is being scapegoated. He should also recognise that in each of the past six quarters, the number of people who are accepted as homeless has fallen and he should recognise that there has been a reduction of 41 per cent. in the number of families in bed

and breakfast accommodation. The hon. Gentleman should also recognise that of the top 10 local authorities in London that have empty properties, nine are Labour controlled.

Mr. Tracey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been a massive reduction in the numbers of rough sleepers in London since the Government began their initiative and that reports of anything different are grossly overstated, exaggerated and untrue? Will he also agree that there is one particular case in which there is a real problem—the bullring—and will he concentrate his attention on that, so that the propagandising by the Opposition, which is totally untrue, can stop?

Sir George Young: About three years ago, everybody who was sleeping rough in the bullring was offered alternative accommodation and it was closed. The Government asked Lambeth council to leave it closed, but the council decided to reopen it and the problem has recurred. Discussions are taking place with the property owners to see whether we can get a more acceptable alternative to the present design of the bullring, and a key part of any redesigning or rebuilding will be offers of suitable accommodation to those who are sleeping rough.

Minerals Planning Guidance

Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to announce new minerals planning guidance on opencast extraction.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): We published revised planning guidelines for public consultation on 14 December. The guidelines deal with both deep mine and opencast coal and with the disposal of colliery spoil.

Mr. O'Brien: I thank the Secretary of State for his decision in the Birch Copice case, when he refused the application for opencast mining and overruled the public inquiry. May I remind the Minister that 20,000 homes in my constituency are still threatened by the prospect of opencast? Many of the people who live there are former miners and face not only the loss of their jobs but the potential destruction of their environment. Is not it time that he gave local people a veto and a right to say no to opencast despoiling their environment?

Mr. Baldry: In those circumstances, I think that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will welcome the new guidelines, which have gone out to consultation, because they mark a distinct shift. They have withdrawn the strong presumption in favour of opencast coal development that existed previously and have replaced it with a test of environmental acceptability.

Mr. Wells: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the new guidelines on mineral extraction and ask when he will introduce in the House the orders necessary to put those guidelines into practice?

Mr. Baldry: They are out for consultation, which closes at the end of March. Given their acceptance and welcome in the House, I hope that hon. Members will make that clear as part of the consultation process.

Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister must, however, agree that what he wrote into the new draft planning guidelines


on opencast mining in December is a presumption not against opencasting, but in favour of it. The guidelines state:
It would be against the national interest to refuse permission",
and only then go on to apply an environmental test. Does not the Minister realise that opencast mining despoils the countryside, damages the local environment and helps to destroy our national deep mine coal industry? Should not there be a strong presumption—far stronger than he has put in this document—against new opencast mining, rather than the green light that the Government seem intent on giving?

Mr. Baldry: Any reasonable person who reads the guidelines will see that they make it clear that where the impact of opencasting would have particularly adverse effects on the environment and the quality of life for local people, permission should not be given unless the development would produce overriding benefits. The guidelines strike a balance between the economic importance of opencast coal and the protection of the environment. It is worth the House recalling that when the socialist Government nationalised the coal industry they did not have any planning regime whatever for opencast mining.

Compulsory Competitive Tendering

Mr. Coe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the extension of compulsory competitive tendering.

Mr. Baldry: My Department is currently consulting local authorities and other interested parties on detailed proposals for extending CCT to local authority security work, vehicle management, management of on-street parking and legal services. We will begin consulting on other white collar services in the course of this year. I anticipate that legislation will take effect in a phased programme beginning in April 1995.

Mr. Coe: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's response. He spoke of the solid benefits of compulsory competitive tendering. Is he also aware of the hidden benefits to a local authority department that chooses to bid for a service: perhaps for the first time it has to look afresh and self-critically at the costs and true resources of that department, to the benefit not only of the smooth running of the department but of the charge payer?

Mr. Baldry: Yes, competitive tendering has brought substantial benefits. Independent research has shown that it has reduced costs on average by 7 per cent. and on some services by up to 20 per cent. Those savings have been made to the benefit of local taxpayers and can be applied to other services in the local authority area. In addition, competitive tendering has improved contract specification, standards have risen, staff morale has improved and scrutiny has improved. All those have been brought about by competitive tendering.

Mr. Denham: Is the Minister aware of the great contribution to the quality of the built environment made by local authority architects' departments? Last week, for example, I attended a meeting with the Royal Institute of British Architects in Hampshire to celebrate a Hampshire school winning the national RIBA award for public design

and on Friday I attended the opening of the Tauntons college in Southampton, the design of which was completed by local authority architects.
Is not the Minister aware that the extension of CCT threatens to undermine the enormous contribution that local authority architects have made to the quality of the built environment and that many of our cities, towns and villages will be despoiled by cheap off-the-shelf design in place of the high-quality public architecture that we have enjoyed in recent years?

Mr. Baldry: Even by the Labour party's terms, I can see no possible ideological reason why architecture has to be designed in-house. A few of us could think without too much difficulty of some fairly horrific examples of 1960s and 1970s buildings by municipal architects.

Mr. Oppenheim: Will my hon. Friend, in his customary big-hearted way, extend warm congratulations to Geoff Lennox, who was a committee chairman and later a senior officer at Derbyshire county council and dedicated his career firmly to fighting against contracting out local services—

Mr. Skinner: He was never any good.

Mr. Oppenheim: He was a big buddy of yours.

Mr. Skinner: He was not.

Mr. Oppenheim: —but who recently took a job on a large salary with a private sector company dedicated to selling contracted-out services to local government institutions? Does this show that at least parts of the Labour party are making progress, or is it just the usual mixture of hypocrisy and opportunism?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A number of people in the Labour movement are seeing the light. My hon. Friend mentioned one; let me mention another. At a recent meeting of the Association of Direct Labour Organisations, Jack Dromey, the national secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, warned that there could be no return to the 1970s, when, he acknowledged, the interests of producers had dominated those of customers. He said:
The managers, councillors and unions made arrangements which suited them, not the community as a whole. I can't put forward any ideological reasons why refuse collection has to be done in-house.
As usual, the parliamentary Labour party is somewhat behind the rest of the Labour movement.

Mr. Pike: Will not the Minister halt the extension of CCT to housing management, recognising the failure last week in Tory-controlled Wandsworth to introduce and privatise the management of some 8,000 houses in Putney and Battersea? Does he not recognise that that failed and abortive exercise has cost the tenants and residents there some £750,000 in trying to meet Tory policy?

Mr. Baldry: There is absolutely no reason why competitive tendering should not also extend to housing management. As to the hon. Gentleman's point about privatising, most of it is extending to council tenants a considerable choice, to which the Labour party seems opposed.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. Points of order come after Question Time, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Sir Paul Beresford: Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole point of competitive tendering is that it allows the in-house team to prove its ability, if it has it? Significantly, it has been proved in Tory boroughs, whereas Labour boroughs consistently fail, when they do not fudge the figures.

Mr. Baldry: Local authorities will increasingly have to demonstrate that they are giving good quality to local people for the vast sums of money that they spend. One of the best ways that local authorities can demonstrate that is to expose their services to competitive tendering. I find it amazing that the Labour party still has difficulty with that concept.

Council Rents

Mr. Clelland: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made about the impact of housing revenue account subsidy on the level of council rents.

Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend is increasing council rent guidelines for 1994–95 by an average of £2·20 a week. The average council rent guideline for subsidy purposes next year will be £31·60, which is both moderate and reasonable.

Mr. Clelland: At a time when owner-occupiers—I count myself among their number—are benefiting not only from tax relief on mortgage interest payments but from significant reductions in housing costs because of the fall in interest rates, how can the Minister justify the fact that, in the forthcoming financial year, local authorities will receive no net subsidy for housing and will have to find £66 million to support housing benefit, which will have to come from rents? Why are the Government so vindictive towards council housing and council tenants?

Sir George Young: To get the figures straight, there will be some £4 billion in housing revenue account subsidy next year. Local authority tenants who are on benefit will, of course, be insulated against any increase. Those tenants who are not on benefit have the option of the rent-to-mortgage scheme, which was put through the House by the Government. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will promote, with vigour and enthusisasm, the rent-to-mortgage scheme to his tenants who are paying the rent in full.

Sir Anthony Durant: Will my right hon. Friend look at councils that are increasing the costs of running their housing departments, which they are passing on to their tenants on an increasing scale? They are doing that to bring in more revenue for the council and are hiding the real costs of running their department.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that housing management will be put out to compulsory competitive tender. The benefits from the reduced cost that that will bring will be fed into the housing revenue account and will feed through in lower rents for his constituents. That is a powerful reason for the Government's pressing ahead with their policy, on which we were urged a few moments ago to hold back.

Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister recall the answer that he gave me on 1 December, which showed that in the previous four years, when the retail prices index increased by 28 per cent., average council rents in London had been pushed up to 89 per cent? His own local authority, Tory-controlled Ealing council, led the way with a massive and disgraceful increase of 201 per cent. Does he recognise that his own authority has the record of the highest local authority rent in the country followed by Tory Redbridge, Tory Westminster, Tory Kensington and Tory Harrow? Will he now admit that it is Tory councils, often inefficient and corrupt, which hold the record for the highest rents?

Sir George Young: As the hon. Gentleman may know, I take some interest in local authority rents in Ealing. He may be aware that rents in Ealing had to go up by such a substantial amount because of some creative accounting by a Labour-controlled Ealing council, which was thrown out of office three years ago. It was the only gain that we made from the Labour party and we achieved it because local people recognised that creative accounting by Labour-controlled councils was highly expensive.
The hon. Member is aware that we are progressively moving towards capital value rents. Next year's guideline increase is lower than that of this year.

Compulsory Competitive Tendering

Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what savings have been made by local authorities in the last year as a result of compulsory competitive tendering.

Mr. Baldry: Details of annual savings are not held centrally, but the results of independent studies by the university of Birmingham show that compulsory competitive tendering has reduced costs by an average of 7 per cent. between 1989 and 1992 and up to 20 per cent. for some services, and also improved services.

Mr. Duncan Smith: In the light of my hon. Friend's answer, will he look carefully at my local council, Waltham Forest, and join me in condemning it for dragging its feet on the application of CCT? As a result of that delay, the council has now started to lay off managers as well as workers in the direct works organisation, which could have been avoided had it applied CCT. Does that not demonstrate that yet another socialist council is failing to work for the people?

Mr. Baldry: Waltham Forest's record on competitive tendering is pretty miserable. We have had to give two directions to it in respect of financial failure of its direct labour organisations, one for failure on building maintenance work and one for failure on ground maintenance work. That meant that Waltham Forest's direct labour organisations were making losses, which were inevitably passed to local tax payers as higher local taxes or reduced services, or both. We are determined that such losses should not continue.

Mr. Gerrard: When the Minister is attacking Waltham Forest council by suggesting that it should be more efficient and producing savings, will he also consider what is happening to the housing action trust in Waltham Forest? It seems that the local authority is expected to make savings by putting services out to tender, whereas the housing action trust, which spends millions of pounds of


public money, is allowed, unilaterally, to dispense with contracts with the local authority and to set up its own direct management, without any tendering process. Is not that a case of one rule for the local authority and another for the quango?

Mr. Baldry: It is very sad that the hon. Member should seek to attack the Waltham housing action trust, because he knows, as other hon. Members know, that local tenants voted for it because they saw that it would bring considerable benefits to them. It is clear from the exchanges in the House this afternoon that the Labour party does not like tenants voting for their own management or local authorities providing better services through competitive tendering.

Mr. Matthew Banks: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the benefits of CCT. He is also aware that his Department had to issue an instruction recently to close the contract services department of Sefton metropolitan borough council, which holds sway over my constituency, at least until we recapture our unitary authority status in Southport. Will he join me in expressing regret that it was necessary for the Government to step in to look after the genuine interests of the council tax payer instead of being able to leave the matter to the local authority leaders concerned?

Mr. Baldry: I very much regret it when it is necessary for Ministers to issue statutory notices and directions. I hope that we can achieve a situation in which Ministers are no longer concerned with CCT, because I would hope that every local authority, be it controlled by Labour, the Conservatives or others, would appreciate the virtues and benefits of exposing their services competitively to the marketplace, and the benefits that that brings to local people. It is clear from this afternoon's exchanges that Labour still has a real ideological hang-up about competition. It seems that for the foreseeable future, Ministers will have to continue introducing statutory notices and directions to ensure that local authorities behave properly.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that one person who hopes to benefit from compulsory competitive tendering is none other than the person mentioned by the hon. Member for Amber. Valley (Mr. Oppenheim)—Geoff Lennox, the ex-director of education with Derbyshire education authority? He used the Labour movement and tried to close schools in my constituency, until I stopped him. I smelt a rat seven or eight years ago and warned my Labour colleagues that he would desert them in the end—and now they all agree with me.

Mr. Baldry: As always, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley scored a palpable hit. It is clear that the gentleman concerned was only appointed by the Labour party because he was a socialist—and for no other reason of merit.

Pollution

Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet his EC counterparts to discuss pollution; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gummer: At the next Environment Council on 24 and 25 March.

Sir Thomas Arnold: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that Great Britain has now ratified the climate change convention? Which European countries have not ratified, and will he take steps to see that they do?

Mr. Gummer: We have ratified and are followed in that by a number of other European Community countries. All have said that they will ratify, and we expect the remaining member states to do so. The Community itself ratifies, of course. I am pleased that we shall together help to guard against climate change, which would be so damaging to this and other countries.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is it the Minister's intention to explain to his colleagues why the Government are privatising the parts of the civil service that specifically provide protection against pollution in this country by making a high level of scientific input into investigations of instances of environmental pollution? Will the right hon. Gentleman do all that he can to ensure that those functions remain within the Government service and are not privatised for the benefit of private industry?

Mr. Gummer: I want the highest possible standards of pollution control services. If they can be improved through the use of private organisations or by privatisation, I shall hurry on with that. The measurement is not whether the services are public or private but whether they deliver the goods that we want—the highest standards of pollution control.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the opening of an opencast mine in a sensitive area between the village of Poynton in my constituency and the Greater Manchester boundary might be described as a form of pollution? If he does, and if my constituents are unhappy with the decision taken by Cheshire county council—which has responsibility for deciding mineral extraction planning applications—is there any way that my constituents can take their case to Europe?

Mr. Gummer: As you, Madam Speaker, did not stop my hon. Friend asking his question, it must be possible for it to be infiltrated into the subject of pollution. I will go no further in answering the first part of my hon. Friend's question.
As to the second part, this country has proper planning procedures that meet the democratic balance between differing sides in trying to reach a decision of that kind. In normal circumstances, those procedures are British procedures and adequately meet the needs of the United Kingdom. I thought that my hon. Friend upheld that position in every other circumstance.

Mr. George Howarth: Is the Secretary of State not ashamed of the fact that in this day and age people who use our beaches and waters for sport and pleasure often find themselves surrounded by raw sewage? Why does he not direct his energies, and those of his colleagues, to cleaning up our bathing waters—instead of seeking to dodge out of the EC bathing water directive?

Mr. Gummer: What I am ashamed of is the fact that, for many years, the nationalised water undertakings did not spend the money that they should have spent on ensuring proper discharges. That is why we privatised the system, in


the teeth of opposition from the Opposition; it is why we are spending—Interruption.]—I hope, Madam Speaker, that you will want to hear this figure. We are spending £3,000 million a year on improving the infrastructure of the water system in Britain. The Labour party tried to deny the system that money, because it voted day in, day out against privatisation. The hon. Gentleman is another Labour Member who should be ashamed of himself.

Energy Efficiency

Mr. Thomason: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he plans to take energy efficiency forward.

Mr. Atkins: The promotion of energy efficiency to reduce carbon dioxide emissions remains a key Government priority, as demonstrated by the further increases in the Energy Efficiency Office's budget for 1994–95 to over £100 million. Energy efficiency measures

will play a significant part in the United Kingdom's climate change programme which will be published later this month.

Mr. Thomason: When undertaking their recent inquiry into energy efficiency, some members of the Select Committee noted widely differing standards of energy efficiency among local authorities. Will my hon. Friend endeavour to encourage local government to pursue energy-efficient schemes as widely as possible?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend, with his great experience of local government, is right to pick on this area as one which can be developed even faster. Certainly, my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning and I are prepared to spend as much time as necessary encouraging local authorities to recognise that their expenditure and, hence, their costs to local charge and taxpayers, can be reduced by energy efficiency.

Madam Speaker: Time is up.

Points of Order

Mr. Simon Burns: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether I can raise two important but related issues—

Madam Speaker: No. I am not here to listen to the issues that the hon. Gentleman wants to raise. If he has a point of order that I can deal with, I will listen to it now, but I want direct points of order.

Mr. Burns: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for that guidance.
I want to raise with you the bringing into disrepute of this House and the security of this House. As you may be aware, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) appeared govellingly with Saddam Hussein on Iraqi television last night, when he said that he supported Saddam and congratulated him on his courage and that he was with him until he secured victory.
Given that this country fought a war against Saddam Hussein, and given the massacre of the Kurds and the marsh Arabs, will you, Madam Speaker, make a ruling on whether an hon. Member, by associating himself with those who commit genocide and who have provoked a war with us, brings the reputation of this House into disrepute?
Furthermore, are there any precautions in place to prevent the hon. Member for Hillhead from bringing into the precincts of this building any of his Iraqi friends who are our enemies because of the actions of Saddam Hussein?

Madam Speaker: Let me deal with the latter point first. I never discuss security matters across the Floor of the House, and I am not about to do so now.
As for last night's television, I was otherwise occupied and did not see the programme in question. It was not a point of order, however. In fact, the hon. Gentleman has just given extra publicity to an hon. Member's opinions on which I cannot possibly comment.

Ms Joan Walley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received a request from the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement in this House about the report that has been published by the marine accident investigation branch and by the marine pollution control unit in respect of the Braer, which went aground over a year ago? I have just been in contact with the other place, where the Shipping Minister serves, and

with the MAIB, and I am told that a number of copies of the report have been circulated but that the Opposition were not included on the circulation list.
It is high time the Secretary of State asked to make a statement; if he does not, this House will be brought into disrepute.

Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by the Secretary of State that he or any other Minister is seeking to make a statement on the matter.

Mr. Richard Tracey: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, about parliamentary language. During Environment questions the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) used the word "gerrymandering" in connection with two London boroughs—the City of Westminster council and the borough of Wandsworth. His suggestion has absolutely no basis.

Madam Speaker: Order. That is a matter for argument. The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing Member and knows that he does not argue with me in the Chair but puts his point to me. What is it, and I will do my best to deal with it?

Mr. Tracey: My point is very simple. To allege gerrymandering without any evidence is surely unparliamentary. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I can deal with this. At this end of the Chamber I often hear rich vocabulary and, if the expression had been unparliamentary, I would certainly have stopped it at the time. Perhaps we can proceed to the ten-minute Bill.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has not the hon. Gentleman just abused the procedures of the House by raising a spurious point of order attacking the district auditor whose comprehensive report published last week made it clear that there was gerrymandering?

Madam Speaker: I am sure the day will come when I get a genuine point of order. Meanwhile, there is a genuine ten-minute Bill.

Mr. Ian Davidson: On a genuine point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of what has been said about Westminster, may I take it that it is in order to describe the reorganisation of Scottish local government as a gerrymander?

Madam Speaker: At the present time that is hypothetical.

Conscientious Objection (Public Expenditure)

Mr. Neil Gerrard: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reform the system of taxation so that taxpayers are enabled to hypothecate on grounds of conscience a proportion of taxation to purposes which they nominate.
The Bill's simple purpose is to allow people who have a conscientious objection to their taxes being used for public expenditure on military purposes to be able to register that objection and to divert that part of their taxes to a specific fund that will be used for peaceful purposes connected with the development of international security.
I believe, and I think that many people associated with the Bill and with the Peace Tax campaign believe, that far too much is spent on armaments, and that far too much talent is wasted on the development, research and production of arms which could be put to much more useful purposes. Far too many arms are exported from this country, particularly to areas in which we know they will be used by regimes that are intent on internal repression. However, that is not what the Bill is about, nor is it the reasoning behind it. There is no logical reason why someone who thinks that present arms spending is reasonable should not support the Bill's principles.
It is important to stress at the outset that the Bill is about conscientious objection. It is not a way for someone to pay less tax, nor is it in any way a charter for people to dodge taxes. It is about tax diversion, not tax evasion. Therefore, there is no incentive whatever for someone who is not a genuine conscientious objector to take advantage of the Bill's provisions. Many conscientious objectors are deeply concerned about international security, international peace and human rights in areas of conflict or potential conflict.
Almost 80 years ago, during the first world war, the House first recognised the right to conscientious objection. It was recognised again during the second world war and during subsequent periods of national service and conscription. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights recognises conscientious objection to war as a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of conscience. Freedom of conscience is also recognised as fundamental by the European convention on human rights.
Being a conscientious objector has never been an easy option. To be a conscientious objector, especially in times of war, has required a great deal of personal courage, and in many cases self-sacrifice. It has never been easy.
It is unlikely now that a conscientious objector will be required actually to fight in a war. The nature of modern warfare involves sophisticated weaponry and professional armies. However, a significant proportion of our taxes is being used in preparation for war to which some people deeply object. For someone who is a conscientious objector that is as unethical as being asked to fight. The Bill would allow such people to have their objections recognised.
May I address a point that is often raised? Some people accept some of the principles behind the Bill, but do not believe that it would work. They believe that such a Bill would open the door to all sorts of problems and that people must recognise that our system of taxation does not work in that way.
When a Government of whatever persuasion have been elected, they have the right to decide how to spend our taxes which end up in a single consolidated fund. We cannot allow someone to say, "Do not spend my taxes on roads or education". To change that, one can vote for a different party at the next election; we cannot expect Governments, local authorities or anybody spending public money to please everyone all the time. I agree with that, as do others who support the Bill.
However, it is a special case. I do not consider that it is a special case that I have to prove to justify the Bill as it has already been recognised by Parliament. If conscientious objection can be recognised in wartime, why not in peacetime as well?
In practical terms, it is not a difficult exercise. All that would be necessary is for the number of registered conscientious objectors to be known by the Inland Revenue. The average individual contribution to the Ministry of Defence budget can be calculated and a simple multiplication of the two figures produces a sum of money to be paid into a peace fund. That would certainly satisfy people who support my view.
The Bill would specify in general terms the purposes for which the fund could be used. I mentioned the need for research and development into converting industry from military to non-military production, the study of causes and resolution of conflict, community-based work to develop and maintain democratic structures and human rights in areas of potential conflict.
In view of much of what has been happening in Europe in recent years and may well happen in future, the need for such work cannot be over-emphasised. Even during the terrible events in the Balkans in the past year or two, small groups of people have been working locally, trying to promote understanding and to maintain democratic structures and human rights. Those people deserve our support by any means.
I hope that we can all agree on the importance of non-military work in promoting peace, security and human rights. A fund of that kind would make a direct contribution to security for everyone. In his recent statement "An Agenda for Peace", the Secretary-General of the United Nations suggested the establishment of a peace endowment fund which, in many ways, is a similar concept.
People have strong personal objections on religious, ethical or moral grounds to taking part in war, and I am asking the House to recognise that similar objections are held by people in respect of the spending of their taxes on arms.
One need not be a pacifist to respect the sincerity of the beliefs of those who are or to acknowledge that people have the right to a conscience. I am asking the House to allow the means for that conscience to be expressed and not violated. I ask the House to support my Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Ian Davidson, Dr. John Marek, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm, Mr. Michael Connarty, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mrs. Alice Mahon and Mr. Frank Cook.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION (PUBLIC EXPENDITURE)

Mr. Neil Gerrard accordingly presented a Bill to reform the system of taxation so that taxpayers are enabled to hypothecate on grounds of conscience a proportion of


taxation to purposes which they nominate: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 January, and to be printed. [Bill 35.]

Industrial Training Levy

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I beg to move,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following motion:
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 2nd December, be approved.

Miss Widdecombe: The proposals before the House seek authority for the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board to impose a levy on the employers in their industries to finance the operating costs of the boards and to fund their range of training initiatives, including grants schemes. Provision for this is contained in the Industrial Training Act 1982, and the orders before the House woud give effect to proposals submitted by the two boards.
Both proposals include provision to raise a levy in excess of 1 per cent. of an employer's payroll. The Industrial Training Act 1982 requires that in such cases the proposals must be approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses. In each case, the proposals are almost exactly the same as those approved by the House last year. As in previous orders, they are based on employer's payrolls and their use of sub-contract labour. Both have special provision for excluding small firms from paying levy.
For the CITB the rates are 0·25 per cent. of payroll and 2 per cent. of payments made by employers to labour-only sub-contrators. Employers with a payroll of £61,000 or less will be exempt. This is an increase from the previous threshold of £45,000.
The ECITB treats its head offices and construction sites as separate establishments and applies different levy rates which reflect the actual costs and the different arrangements for training particular workers. For head offices, the rates are 0·4 per cent. of payroll and 0·5 per cent. of payments to labour-only sub-contractors. Firms employing 40 or fewer employees are exempt. The rates for sites are 1·5 per cent. of payroll and 2 per cent. of labour-only payments, with exemption for employers with a payroll of £75,000 or less.
In each case, the proposals have the support of the employers in the industry as required by the Industrial Training Act 1982 and have the full support of the respective boards, which consist of senior employers, trade unionists and educationists.
The House will know that the CITB and the ECITB are the only two statutory industrial training boards. Most other sectors of industry are covered by independent, non-statutory arrangements. In those two industries, however, employers are firm in their support for a statutory board and the House will recall that last year we reconstituted the CITB for a further five years. In doing so, we recognised the strong feelings of employers, and the performance and achievements of that board.
The House will also be aware that the ECITB is currently being reviewed. Such reviews are, of course, necessary if we are to ensure that the training arrangements that we have in place are right for employers in a particular sector. As with the CITB, we have consulted fully with the


industry about the effectiveness of the board and about the levy system more generally. The ECITB's current term of office is due to expire in July and I expect to make a statement to the House around the beginning of April.
The draft orders will enable the two boards to carry out their training responsibilities in 1994. It is right that the House should approve them, and I commend them accordingly.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: This so far remarkably short debate shows the priority that the Government place on training.

Miss Widdecombe: Before the hon. Member comments on the degree of Government interest in training, will he recall that there were no Opposition Members present during a major debate on the national education and training targets a few weeks ago?

Mr. Lloyd: That is an interesting point given that the Minister is surrounded by a Whip, who has to be here, and by the hon. Members for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) and for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), who—and I mean no disrespect by this—are always here for such debates. I do not think that there are signs of a massive interest in training.
Perhaps I can provoke discussion by starting off where we left off yesterday, when the Minister offered me various invitations. She asked whether I would welcome the number of young people in training and jobs. But she never responded to the argument that, at a time when skill shortages are beginning to emerge in the economy, 125,000 16 and 17-year-olds are unemployed. She has never sought to deny that fact because the figure comes from the Department of Employment's labour force survey, which was published in the Employment Gazette.
I am happy to talk to the Minister or, indeed, to the Secretary of State who invited us to discuss the fiddled figures. If the Minister gives me a guarantee that she will talk seriously about what happened to the 125,000 unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds and state why they did not appear in the official unemployment figures, we shall attend the discussions. Will the Minister give that guarantee?

Miss Widdecombe: The invitation to discuss with the Secretary of State the way in which the figures were calculated and the various differences and studies was extended to the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, but it was never taken up. I shall be most interested to know whether the current Labour Front-Bench team want to take up the offer. Until the team come to discuss the employment figures with us, they are not in any position to condemn civil servants for their independent and high standard of work.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is bigger than I am, so the invitation is bound to come to him first. We would be delighted to come along. The accusation is not that civil servants fiddle the figures but that politicians instruct them on how they should count—in fact, miscount—the figures.
I did not pluck from the air the statistic that 125,000 16 and 17-year-olds are unemployed. The figure appeared in the Employment Gazette, a Department of Employment publication, and it comes from the labour force survey. It

was produced by the same civil servants who the Minister wants to deride. Of course, those civil servants are telling the truth. For 125,000 young people, the Government's guarantee did not apply. They were betrayed by the Government. They were unemployed, some of them were left idle on the streets and some resorted to crime and drugs —the sort of things that afflict young people and society. The Government are responsible.

Miss Widdecombe: As the hon. Gentleman has such utter confidence in the labour force survey, and as he is so keen to accept its figures, will he confirm that he accepts the figure of 2·7 million unemployed and that it is not underestimated by 1 million, as his friends have been claiming in recent days?

Mr. Lloyd: We had an enjoyable debate about that matter on Sunday; regrettably, it was not in this place. As the Minister will recall, I was able to quote to her a survey done by Dr. Wells at Cambridge university. He pointed out that the Government's official figures underestimate real unemployment by between 1 million and 2 million.
It is internationally accepted that the Government are prepared to use and abuse any form of statistics, just as we saw with the abuse and suppression of information on the health service and the way in which the Government manipulate figures up and down to suit their political purposes, and sometimes for nefarious purposes. Apparently it is not relevant to mention the £1 million profit that the Conservative party made when it bought the freehold of Smith square from Tory-controlled Westminster council and then sold it on again to the private sector.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: It was £2 million.

Mr. Lloyd: As my hon. Friend says, it was £2 million.
I do not think that it was applied to training. I think that it was to prop up the deficit of the chairman of the Conservative party at that time. That matter is not central to training, but it is central to the shoddy way in which the Government deal with their own properties and those of other people.

Miss Widdecombe: May I refer the hon. Gentleman to the debate? I am sure, Madam Speaker, that if you had not been otherwise engaged, you would have ruled several of the hon. Gentleman's sentences out of order.
However, the hon. Gentleman claims that tile International Labour Organisation definition is the one which we should be using. He says that we are deliberately suppressing figures. May I take it that the essence of the hon. Gentleman's case is that the United Nations and the International Labour Organisation are conspiring with Conservative politicians to produce a definition specifically to enable Britain's employment figures to be fiddled? Is that the hon. Gentleman's ludicrous statement?

Mr. Lloyd: The Minister is on rather dangerous ground in praying in aid the ILO. Will the Minister discuss, for example, the fact that the ILO has condemned unconditionally the Government's ban on trade unions at Government communications headquarters, and that it has described that employment practice as an outrage against the employment rights of people at work? That is what the ILO says about the Government. The ILO unemployment figures are certainly worth discussing.
We will take up the Minister's offer, but only on condition that we examine in particular the 125,000 missing 16 and 17-year-olds whom the Government betrayed when they promised training which they did not undertake either through the CITB or any other training mechanism. That must be the starting point.
Let us consider the Government's record on training and the particular role of training boards. Department of Employment spending specifically on the now disbanded employment training and youth training schemes dropped between 1987 and 1992 by £3 billion a year down to £1·7 billion, when unemployment and the number of people who needed training to put them back into work had increased massively.
But the Government's record becomes a little worse. We know that, since that time, there have been further real cuts in the training budget. Training and enterprise councils have had their budgets cut, so in real terms less money is devoted to training and considerably less money is devoted to individual training, with the result that training for work and youth training are particularly shoddy little schemes.
For example, we know that, as a result of the training for work scheme and its predecessors, only one third of the people obtained work. The remarkable statistic—it would be amusing if it were not so very sad—is that unemployed adults have virtually the same chance of obtaining work if they do not go on a Government scheme as they would if they did. That must be the biggest indictment of the Mickey Mouse training schemes that the Government have made available through the CITB and, indeed, elsewhere through employment training and now training for work.

Miss Widdecombe: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his statement by telling the House within what period that one third had not found work before he creates the impression that they never had work?

Mr. Lloyd: If we want to pursue this matter, I invite the Minister to begin to answer questions which would allow us to answer her question. The Department of Employment has stopped publishing figures that enable people to track what has happened to the unemployed. I would be delighted if the Minister returned to the Dispatch Box—of course, I would do her the courtesy of giving way again—and said that she will answer questions which relate specifically to what has happened to the long-term unemployed. If she does not have the information at hand, which is the usual departmental response, I hope that she will undertake that the Department will set up precise mechanisms to track the unemployed so that we can begin to talk seriously about what has happened to them. Does she want me to give way on that matter, or was she simply introducing a bit of Dispatch Box rhetoric?
It is a serious point. We need to know what happened to the long-term unemployed. I shall tell the Minister what has happened to them. They live in poverty; their families suffer; they have greater health problems; they have greater marital breakdown; they have greater stress; and they die younger. In the end, their children are more likely to be involved in crime and drugs. That is a tragedy.
Long-term unemployment blights our society and the lives of our constituents. It is a direct result of the mass unemployment policy that the Government have pursued.

Therefore, to some extent, we know what happens to the long-term unemployed, and we know what the Government have not done for them. They do not provide training for people to go back to work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) says, the bottom line is that they simply do not care.

Miss Widdecombe: In view of the hon. Gentleman's deep concern for the long-term unemployed, which I share, will he now welcome the 1·5 million training opportunities that the Government have created for that category of people?

Mr. Lloyd: No. I am sorry, but I will not welcome the Mickey Mouse schemes set up by the Government, because they do not any good. They keep the unemployed off the streets, if that is what the Minister means, and out of the statistics. If that is the objective, of course we understand why the Government welcome the schemes. [Interruption.] They are fiddlers on the Bench—that is absolutely right.

Miss Widdecombe: The main intention of our training schemes is not simply to equip people with the right skills as determined locally but, more importantly, to keep the long-term unemployed in touch with work-related training. One of the things we found—the Labour Government found exactly the same thing—is that employers are reluctant to take on people who have been unemployed for any length of time. Therefore, it is crucial that the long-term unemployed have training which is linked directly to employment and the labour market so that they at least keep in touch with work-related activity. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that that is the basis of our training schemes, and will he welcome it?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) says that there is one vacancy for every person out of work and for every 20 people on the dole. That is the tragedy of what the Minister is saying. There is no easy path for people to return to work when there is no work to which they can return. That is the tragedy of the employment schemes that the Government have made available.
The schemes do not work. They do not create work; they do not up-skill people; they do not help the nation; and they do not help individuals. The bottom line is that it is a political game. We saw the same game as each Secretary of State was trundled out to pasture and a new one was wheeled in. The Government reinvented the wheel. What is worse, sometimes they have broken the wheel.
I shall refer specifically to construction skills because the Minister has tried to divert me from that matter on occasions. Recently, the Secretary of State launched the Government's new apprenticeship schemes with a lot of fireworks. He said that it was a magnificent opportunity and there was a vast marketplace for the United Kingdom to compete in, but in order to do so successfully, we needed to ensure that our work force had all the skills they need.
The Secretary of State has also said that he wants to build up vocational training and qualifictions. If he were serious about that, he would get the support of Opposition Members. He had the nerve to ask whether somebody would want their house rewired by an electrician who had demonstrated skills by rewiring other houses, or by someone who had passed an exam in solid state physics. Is


the Secretary of State saying that decent education is the privilege of people like him? I believe that the Secretary of State went to public school, and his children may also go to public school. The Under-Secretary herself may have gone to public school.
The reality for many thousands of our fellow citizens is that they do not have an opportunity to go to such schools, but they are entitled to the best quality education. To sideline them and to say that all that is wanted is people who have basic rewiring skills is to insult them and to denigrate their abilities.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is keen on education. Yesterday, I announced that 77 per cent. of those aged 16 to 18 stayed on in education to obtain the qualifications which are so important.

Mr. Kevin Barron: That is because they have no jobs.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman makes my point exactly. When the figures were announced, all that Opposition Members did was to cry out that it was because there were no jobs. In other words, education is the second-best choice.
If the hon. Gentleman is so keen that education be made available to all—that is an ambition that I share—why does he put it down as second-best to getting a job and leaving young people low paid, untrained and poorly educated at the age of 16?

Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps we need to engage in a little systematic teaching in the Chamber. Let me teach the Minister about what happens in our further education colleges. It is true that the Opposition welcome the increasing numbers of young people who are staying on in education.

Miss Widdecombe: The Opposition do welcome it?

Mr. Lloyd: We welcome it where that education is of their choice and is meaningful. It would be simply ridiculous to do anything else. Like many of my generation, I was lucky enough to pass through the state system at a time when the state system was able to transport people from areas where education opportunities had not existed previously.
Of course I welcome the increase in figures, and further education ought to be a right. Let me tell the Minister what happens in the underfunded system which she and her colleagues have created during the past 15 years. At the age of 18, there is a massive decline in the figures so that Britain has a far smaller proportion of its young people in full-time education than in most other parts of western Europe. That is the case when we compare ourselves with France and Germany—the nations which we like to compete with.
If the Minister wants to say that we are doing a little better than Morocco on that scale, I would not want to dispute that. However, that is not the reference point to which I or the people I represent aspire. We can do a little better than that.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman said that he would inform the House of what is going on in our further education colleges. May I invite him to come to the Lancaster and Morecambe college of further education? He could not find a more admirable institution than that. The college provides the most superb

training and it turns out people who get jobs. Places at the college are sought after, and the people it turns out are sought after. Would the hon. Gentleman care to visit, so that he will be in touch with what is happening in a part of the world which he ought to know?

Mr. Lloyd: With the respect that I have for the hon. Lady, of course I will accept her invitation. However, there is a proviso. A year or two ago, when I spoke for the Opposition on health and safety, I wrote to a lot of hospitals and health authorities regarding the position of health and safety in those areas. I specifically wrote to the chairman of the health authority in the area which the hon. Lady represents. The hon. Lady raised a point of order in the House and condemned me for interfering in her constituency. I trust that, if I accept her invitation, it will not lead to the same hysteria and shenanigans which occurred on that occasion.
I would also say to the hon. Lady that I would be delighted to come up to that area, which I visit from time to time. She knows that her seat is one which the Labour party would expect to win at the next election, and she will have a considerable number of visits by Labour Members during the coming months. If I agree to come to see the hon. Lady's college of further education, will she come with me to the jobcentre, where perhaps we will talk to those in the dole queue who number about three times as many as there were when the Government took power in 1979? It would make an interesting joint focus—the failure of the Government represented by the dole queues and the paltry effort that they have put into further education.
I wish to talk specifically about the construction industry and the Construction Industry Training Board. I welcome the Secretary of State to the Chamber. He will be interested to know that not so many minutes ago the Minister was berating the House for the limited number of people interested in training who have bothered to turn up for the debate. I can tell the Secretary of State that it will not take him long to read the Under-Secretary's speech, because there was very little in it. However, he may be a little more interested in the speech that she has made since then in interventions in my speech. We are ever willing to help the Government. We should develop our interest in training and I welcome the Secretary of State to the debate.
I have just referred to something that the Secretary of State said. I did not complete the point that I wanted to make, because I gave way to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). Given the Secretary of State's educational background and the opportunities that it gave him, he has something of a cheek to denigrate ordinary people in the way that he did when he spoke at the national training awards ceremony at which he launched his plans for vocational training.
I have said to the Secretary of State privately and I repeat it publicly that we shall support a properly structured, properly funded approach to vocational training, as long as it provides proper, quality education which is genuinely aimed at uplifting the skill level of our young people. We need to uplift the skill level of not only our young people. The Secretary of State should recognise that the position in Germany is very different. Many of those who enter vocational training do so having already received a first-class education to a high standard through the ordinary academic system.
If the Secretary of State is prepared to put the money into such a scheme, he will receive a welcome from the


Opposition. But if his scheme is simply an attempt to divert those who are regarded as the lower classes by Conservative Members on to Mickey Mouse training, if he is simply saying, "We want the best for the chaps and chapesses from the public school system, but anything will do for the kids from the inner-city areas," he will receive no welcome from the Opposition.
The Secretary of State makes comments such as:
do you want driving your car someone who has only passed a written examination?
I do not want someone driving my car who has had only practical experience and no training whatever. That would be ridiculous. He says:
who do you want as a foreman on a construction site, someone with good practical and people skills or someone who could write a good essay on the construction industry?
If the Secretary of State denigrates the type of education that makes our construction workers properly qualified, he is foolish.
Let me quote from someone at the sharp end at one of the very good colleges of further education to which the hon. Member for Lancaster referred a few moments ago. Almost as if in response to the Secretary of State's silly remarks, one of the critics of the current system of training, a college lecturer, said that a young NVQ-qualified craftsman could build a brick wall, but
because he had never been told about the effects of freezing weather on water, he would not know what to do when it was cold.
He went on to say that the wall would probably fall down in a couple of years. I agree with what that lecturer said.
I remind the Secretary of State that there is a need for theory as well as practice. Of course we want practical skills. The Government have sold the practical side of the nation down the river for the past 15 years. However, we must upgrade the general level of education of those who become the practitioners in industry. That is what the Secretary of State seemed to denigrate in his launch. I hope that he will think again if he is serious about education and training in construction for our young people.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman cannot accuse me of not responding to him. He has consistently referred to what he describes as Mickey Mouse training. Will he tell me how a syllabus devised not by the Government but by the industry, independently assessed and drawn up on the basis of good practice, can be a qualification deserving of the title "Mickey Mouse"? Will he please recognise that there are those who, while not benefiting from the academic route, will nevertheless, like their German and Japanese counterparts, benefit from a competence-based work route? That is what NVQs are about. Will he please welcome them and respect the industry that has drawn them up?

Mr. Lloyd: The Minister has a long way to go. She does not seem to understand the problems.

Mr. James Clappison: Answer the question.

Mr. Lloyd: Of course I shall answer the question. Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene to ask a question before I start to reply to the Minister?
I refer the Minister to a study conducted by Professor Prais and others who considered NVQs and concluded that they were not terribly good. The university of Manchester

also carried out a study of NVQs and concluded that in many cases there was an over-concentration on—I cannot remember the Minister's exact words—what is, in effect, self-assessment. The teacher decides whether the student, apprentice or learner has made progress and, in accordance with the Government's preferred method of assessment, is then measured by output funding. It is a nasty little world, but a Government who praised Westminster council should not have too much difficulty with the concept of people cheating, which is what happened under that system. That is what devalues NVQs.
If the Minister thinks that what I am saying is merely proof of the nasty Opposition being beastly to the well-meaning Government, let me cite Mr. Martin Pollard. He is the chief executive of the joint council between employers and unions in the electrical contracting industry, so his comments are highly relevant to the debate.
Mr. Pollard said that one of the problems for young people undertaking the TECs' two-year courses is that they find jobs as electricians although they have not—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the Minister, having asked a question about the quality of NVQs, is talking to the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), and does not want to listen to the answer. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) can tell her the answer later. Oh, it is very decent of the Government Whip to leave the Chamber.
Mr. Pollard said that some training and enterprise funding councils were funding two-year courses and releasing trainees to find jobs as electricians, although they had not reached the required standard. He continued:
In fact the only position in which they could be employed is that of a labourer—surely a waste of two years' training.
It is not only a waste of training but a massive waste of Government money and of the lives of these young people.
I visited the construction site of a very good development in my constituency. One of the senior people there said that, when he takes people from Government training courses in the construction trades, he finds that he has to put them back in the classroom. People who have undertaken a two-year Government course are being told that their bricklaying or other skills are not up to scratch and that they must go back to the classroom. They do not earn the money that they had expected to earn, so they say, "Sorry pal, I'm off," and they decide to take a job elsewhere—if they can find one. They may have difficulty doing so because their skills are not adequate. That is an example of the problems created by the Government.
The Government are directly responsible for the failure outlined by Mr. Pollard, an independent industrialist.

Miss Widdecombe: rose—

Mr. Thomas Graham: rose—

Mr. Lloyd: If the Minister will forgive me, I shall give way first to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Graham: Some time ago I mentioned to one of the Ministers the case of a young constituent of mine who had been training to be a plumber. The training shop was shut and he was thrown on to the dole without having finished his course. However, the Secretary of State for Scotland told the House that we badly needed to spend more than £5 billion on improving water and sewerage services. We shall desperately need plumbers and construction workers,


but the Government are not willing to provide money for training in Scotland because they have cut funding by more than 33 per cent.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) makes an important point. He makes the case that we shall certainly need those skills and that is not in doubt. I shall come directly to that point on a United Kingdom basis in a moment.
One of the staggering things that we confront in Scotland is that, as my hon. Friend says about one of his constituents, young people are treated in a shoddy way. Yet we learn that the Secretary of State, who has announced his apprenticeship scheme, has not the clout in the Cabinet to take that system north of the border. The apprenticeship system on which the Government are pinning the future skills of the nation will not apply in Scotland. My hon. Friend is right to be incensed.

Mr. John Prescott: He has not got any money.

Mr. Lloyd: Well, there is a difference of opinion on our Front Bench, which one gets now and again in a healthy, democratic party. I had not thought of it before, but my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde tells me that the scheme is seen as so sub-standard that the Scots do not want it. Even the Secretary of State for Scotland has apparently rumbled the Secretary of State for Environment and does not want the scheme. I thought that it was because the Scots were being deprived. I now learn that the Secretary of State for Scotland does not think that the commitment will be there, that the money will be there or that it will be there to provide the quality training that we ought to have.
If the Secretary of State for Scotland does not want the scheme, we must doubt the reason why it has been foisted on those of us in the rest of the country. Does the Minister want to give way?

Mr. Prescott: Is it true?

Miss Widdecombe: No.

Madam Speaker: Order. One debate at a time.

Mr. Lloyd: I invite the Minister—

Madam Speaker: May we return to the subject of the order?

Mr. Lloyd: Give me a chance. [Laughter.] I invite the Minister specifically to confirm whether the apprenticeship scheme will apply in Scotland as she seems to indicate.

Miss Widdecombe: indicated dissent.

Mr. Lloyd: She is now shaking her head. Is the Minister telling us that she does not know whether the scheme will apply in Scotland?

Miss Widdecombe: When I said it was not true, I was referring to the incredible degree of waffle, imputed motivation and knowledge of what goes on in Cabinet, which the hon. Gentleman does not have. I was also saying that the hon. Gentleman is getting more ludicrous by the moment. Madam Speaker agrees with me: we should get back to discussing the order. May we discuss the training levy for the construction industry and not Scottish NVQs?

Mr. Lloyd: I am a little surprised. I thought that when I gave way the Minister wanted to tell us whether she knew that the system would apply to training and to the construction industry among others in Scotland. It is clear that she has not got a clue. The Secretary of State is in the Chamber. I wonder whether he knows. I undertake to keep talking for the time it would take him to get to the Dispatch Box. It appears that the Secretary of State does not know whether the scheme applies in Scotland.
Would it be possible for the House to adjourn until the Prime Minister came along to tell us whether he knows? Perhaps we could even get the Prime Minister to the Scott inquiry to tell us whether he knows anything about the sale of arms to Iraq, anything about Government policy on training—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am not minded to adjourn the House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has a lot of material before him at the Dispatch Box and he can return to the order.

Mr. Lloyd: I am just beginning to warm up.
There is a central question about whether the apprenticeship model will apply to construction trainees in Scotland. It seems as if the cavalry is about to come with the news. Does the hon. Member for hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) want to break the news to the House himself, or would he prefer to convey it to the Minister? We seem to have a problem in inter-departmental consultation. It seems to be a case not so much of Fabian of Scotland Yard as of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
If we consider the construction industry and the situation as evidenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde in his constituency, and then consider what has happened on a national basis to the number of trainees in the construction industry, we find that the level of employment in the industry has plummeted. In 1990, when the foolishly manufactured boom of Lawson was still at its height, there were nearly 1·9 million people employed in the construction industry. By last July that figure had dropped down to only 1,392,000. In other words, about 500,000 construction workers had lost their jobs in that two-year period. That is a staggering loss both of employment for those individuals and of our economic base. It is a staggering leaching of the nation's skills.
I have something else to tell the Minister and again she will not know whether it is right or wrong. The industry on a reasonably accurate forecast reckons that, for every two construction workers who leave the industry during a slump, only one returns.

Miss Widdecombe: Has the other one found a job?

Mr. Lloyd: I will tell the Minister about that. A couple of weeks ago I came by taxi to the House. The driver of my minicab was a very nice man and I talked to him about his background. He told me that he used to run his own construction company but, unfortunately, he was one of many victims of the recession. He hates this Government. He lost his business and his employees were all made unemployed because of the Government. He is now driving a taxi and he hates it. He resents the fact that he is a skilled man yet cannot use the skills that he has acquired over the years to work for those who want him to in his chosen trade. Instead, he is taxiing around, like many other people. Yes, the Minister is right, some people find


jobs—they find jobs as taxi drivers or in the McDonald's sector of our economy. They do not find skilled jobs in construction or in manufacturing, because that work has gone and in many cases gone for good.
In a little over two years, a quarter of the construction labour force disappeared. We should stand back in amazement at that and show at least a little sympathy for the individuals involved and for our economy. At the same time the number of apprentices in the construction industry slumped. In 1990—the year that I cited for the peak in employment—there were 77,000 apprentices in the construction industry. By last year, the figure had virtually halved to 43,000. That is no great tribute to the skills revolution that the Government claim is taking place. It simply shows an industry that regards training for the future as an avoidable expense when the going gets tough, in this case directly because of Government policy.
In no sense is the level of skills being maintained. We have lost permanently about 250,000 skilled workers and we have not even begun the process of replacing them through the industrial training schemes that we are discussing. The Minister should apologise to the House for that.
I do not want to be over-critical of the industry training board.

Mr. Prescott: Why not?

Mr. Lloyd: Because it would be unfair to shoot the messenger when the people responsible are sitting behind the Government Dispatch Box. Sir Clifford Chetwood, the chairman of the construction industry training board, wrote in the foreword to the 1991–92 report—the most recent one available:
It is therefore with some satisfaction … that, by judicious use of reserves and by the application of a range of counter-cyclical measures, CITB has been able to maintain training at an acceptable level during this period of deep recession in the industry.
I am sorry to say so, but Sir Clifford is being complacent, given that the number of apprentices in construction has virtually halved.
We know that one of the problems facing the CITB is that its revenue has been cut during that period. As businesses have ceased to trade and as people have left the industry, the sums coming into the construction industry have been cut by £8 million. Last year the level of spending in the industry was about £52 million; this year's spending will be down to £43 million. That is a significant fall. That goes a long way to explain why there has been the cut in the number of people gaining training in the construction industry, which we think they should have.
The Government are simply incompetent in their ability and desire to plan. They were forced, because of the demands from within the industry—one or two Conservative Members were part of the process of lobbying—to retain the Construction Industry Training Board. I am happy to pay tribute to the role that they played at that time. It was recognised that the Government's ideological approach to training—that we do not want national bodies and do not need any national mechanisms for planning—was wrong-headed. The industry said that.
In the end, even the Government, dogmatic and pig-headed as they normally are, were forced to listen to what the industry said. In the end, grudgingly and against

the desires of the ideologues on the Government Front Bench at the time, the Government accepted the role of the CITB. But they have never accepted the need for the CITB to act in a counter-cyclical manner. When there is an upturn again in the economy, we shall see an increase in wage costs, for example, as happened between 1981 and 1990, when the industry increased the number of employees by some 250,000. Wage inflation became a significant part of the construction industry at that time. It was a damning critique of the incompetence and failure of the planning mechanisms that the industry was allowed to get into that position.
It may be bold and unwise to do so, but let us speculate that the shoots of recovery have at last appeared and that one of the industries that will pick up is construction. We would once again have skills shortages throughout the construction industry of a kind that will not easily be picked up by the present training board policies.
That is the central failure of the training board structure that we currently have. The Government are not committed to it. They will not finance it properly and will not let the industry finance its training properly. That is why we will have wage inflation within construction when there is any kind of pick up within the industry. Although I welcome every new job that is created—let the Minister understand that the Labour party welcomes that—we do not welcome the incompetence of a Government who have failed to plan for the future.
Reference was made earlier to colleges of further education, of which there are some 400 in England. Some 40 have stopped their wet trade construction courses over recent months. The reason for that is twofold. It is in part because the trainees are simply not coming forward, either through the CITB or the industry. There simply are not the bums on seats. The other reason comes down to the Government's so-silly view of the educational process. They paraded with great pride and pleasure the creation of a market in education.
The effect is that further education colleges, squeezed for money, have made decisions. They have decided to withdraw from high-cost courses that are resource intensive, such as construction and some of those in the manufacturing skills, and instead have opted for low-cost courses, sometimes courses such as English. That is welcome and I am not denigrating those courses, but I am dismayed that one in 10 of our colleges of further education has ceased to provide resource-intensive courses.
Will the Minister tell the House whether she has any views on who will train our young people in construction skills if those courses no longer exist in further education colleges? I do not know who will train the next generation. It becomes a serious problem.
The central point of the debate is that it is because the Government consistently underfunds the CITB, because they do not have a credible approach to training within construction, that the Opposition intend to divide this evening on the two orders. We must make it clear to the Government that they are simply not providing the money nor the effort necessary to maintain training opportunities. I have been in the House for some years and I have participated in debates on previous training orders. Today is the first time in my memory that we have sought to divide the House on the issue. We shall do so to make our protest public.
The time has come to tell the Government that they can no longer get with their rhetoric about training. Each new Secretary of State launches his or her new scheme, but a couple of years later each new system fails.
According to any reputable measurement—that discounts anything produced by central Government—and any international comparison, Britain is falling short when it comes to providing intermediate vocational qualifications. A recent report showed that 63 per cent. of workers in Germany have intermediate vocational qualifications, either technical or craft qualifications. Nearly two out of three German workers have a vocational qualification and a further 11 per cent. have a degree. The German economy is based on a high level of worker education and skills.
In Britain, the number of workers with university degrees is rougly the same, but only one in four people have vocational qualifications. We are falling far behind the Germans, the French and the Japanese. Conservative Members may still believe that we are witnessing a skills revolution, but that is not what is happening in the British workplace.

Miss Widdecombe: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how many national vocational qualification equivalents the Labour Government introduced? What did his Government introduce as an equivalent to training and enterprise councils? What did his Government ever do to bring about a training revolution?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a good question and like all good questions, it has a good answer. The Minister should cast her mind back to when the apprenticeship system was still alive and training our young people.

Miss Widdecombe: How many apprenticeships were offered for girls?

Mr. Lloyd: I agree that that lack has always been a problem and a black mark against our training system. I intend to ask the Minister a specific question about the number of women trainees in construction. I hope that she intends to make progress on that issue.
The Minister asked me what happened to promote training before the Government came to power. Critical as we are about the collapse of training in construction, because of the Government's lack of commitment to that training board's structure, the fact that that board exists has offered protection to the industry. Despite that, however, the number of trainees in construction is half what it was in the years 1981 to 1990.
There were 56,000 apprentices in the construction industry in 1979, but by 1993 that number had dropped to 43,000. Roughly one quarter of apprenticeships were lost. In 1979, the number of trainees in the print industry was 2,767. By last year that number had fallen to 380. That is an incredible reduction and its' relevance must be obvious to hon. Members.
In the- early 1980s, the Government abolished with a flourish the Print Industry Training Board along with the other industrial training boards. The Government argued that they had to be abolished because they were not fulfilling the role desired by the Government. According to the Government White Paper published in 1988,
ITBs had 'not succeeded in raising the standard and the quantity of training in the sectors they covered to the level of our major competitors·"'

Since then, in those industries where the Government misguidedly abolished training boards, training has collapsed. [Interruption.]
The Minister laughs with mock scorn. When the printing industry training board was abolished, the number of trainees dropped from 2,767 to 380. The Minister does not think that is a collapse. The Government have sabotaged training, skills, the skills stock and Britain's future in the printing industry—which, of all industries, needs high skill levels.
I come from a family of three generations of printers. I was brought up in a family in which it was common to recognise the love that my own father had for his skills as a printer. The Government are dismantling that tradition. For the Minister to laugh places her and the Government in the right context. This is an anti-training Government. This is a Government of industrial destruction. This is a Government of political Luddites, who have smashed our infrastructure and left little for young people in industries such as printing and construction.
Although training has been badly hit in the two remaining boards, the number of trainees has only halved. In industries where boards were abolished, training has effectively been dismantled.

Miss Widdecombe: indicated dissent.

Mr. Lloyd: The Minister shakes her head. In printing, one trade union put up £1 million to run a school of excellence. The European Community was prepared to make available £1·5 million to back that project and Salford local authority in Greater Manchester made a prime site available for the school. Some employers also wanted to put up money, but the employers collectively could not get their act together. The printing industry loses by that because, when an upturn arrives in that sector as in construction, we shall see again the skills shortages that bedevil this country every time that the Government lead us from bust to a temporary pick-up in the economy. The Minister's laughter is the laughter of a Government who have neither the sense nor the compassion to understand the problems.
Even though the Government did not want to talk about construction and engineering construction industry training and have made almost no comment, this debate provides others with an opportunity to express their views. We have had the opportunity to bring the Minister to her feet on other occasions, but she has not answered particularly constructively to questions about the construction and engineering construction industries.
I will ask the Minister one or two questions that I hope she will find easier to answer, since they were posed by her predecessor when the CITB review was completed and the board was told that it could continue another five years. At that time, the Government devised a number of tests. The CITB had to set a target for participation by ethnic minorities and women in youth training schemes. What progress has been made? Can the Minister encourage us to believe that there is realisation of the need to encourage ethnic minorities and women to enter an industry that has traditionally been male-dominated?

Ms Angela Eagle: The disabled should also be encouraged.

Mr. Lloyd: As my hon. Friend says.
I am not sure that I understood the Minister's remarks about the long-term future of the engineering construction training board.

Miss Widdecombe: A statement will be made in April.

Mr. Lloyd: The Minister says that a statement will be made in April, but we do not know now what will be the outcome. It would be outrageous if the Government were to destroy that board as they did the others, hard on the heels of the information that I have given the House about the collapse of training in the construction and allied industries.
Britain is sliding steadily backwards, and it will continue to do so as long as we have a Government who are anti-education and anti-training. The Government display no commitment to industrial training and offer no encouragement to train to those who are in work. They offer precious little encouragement to people out of work and to the next generation. The Government's failure to treat the engineering and construction industry training boards seriously will lead us to divide the House at the end of this debate.

Sir Michael Neubert: Anniversaries are an uncomfortable reminder of the passage of time, but they also provide an opportunity to measure the advance and achievement of the year gone by. This annual debate gives the House such an opportunity. My interest in the construction order arises from my role as parliamentary adviser to the Federation of Master Builders. It is the third such debate in which I have taken part. Nothing much changes, except the Minister. It is never the same Minister twice. This afternoon, we are glad to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) to take her turn in starring at the Dispatch Box.
We always hear a major speech from a member of Labour's Front Bench. On the last occasion, the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) took one third of the 90 minutes available for debate. This afternoon, we have three hours available, but again the hon. Gentleman has taken one third of the time. I hope that the Government do not give a full day on the next occasion because, if the hon. Gentleman were to speak for two hours, I am not sure that I have the stamina or bladder capacity to hear all that he had to say.
I welcome one change. The Government have given this business prime time by putting it first on the Order Paper, and we should welcome the opportunity to bring the construction and engineering construction industries to the attention of the nation at this early hour, rather than debate them at some dark hour of the night when only Members of Parliament are around to listen.
There have been two main developments since our last debate. I welcomed the statement made two weeks after we last debated the future of the CITB, which was under review. I expressed my appreciation of the Government's action in recognising once again the unique character of that industry and accepting that it continues to warrant exemption from Government policy of looking to industries to make independent, employer-led arrangements to provide and to fund adequate training.
The case for exemption needs to be defended. A project's time span can be as short as three months. Larger projects, of course, may be measured in years, but there are not so many of them. The construction of the Palace of Westminster took 15 years, but today it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that one can see in Hong Kong the start and finish of an office building in the three weeks that one is on holiday there. The longer-term view is no longer available to the construction industry as to other industries, so a statutory levy makes sense. Otherwise, the cheap short cut would always be taken.
The construction industry consists mainly of small firms, widely dispersed, engaged in a variety of activities. The work load is cyclical and vulnerable to changes in the economy, which makes manpower forecasting unfeasible.
The industry is highly mobile, the size of the workplace varies and businesses come and go with frightening frequency. At the same time, it is all too easy to start up a business, however inadequately trained or qualified a person may be.
The industry is therefore in a category of its own. As for health and safety, the very nature of the work in the construction industry involves much higher risks than the work in many other industries, so safe working practices are imperative, and training for safety must be given the utmost priority.
No employer would ever want to take on staff who, once they have qualified, go down the road and work for some other business, thus acting in competition with the original employer. Thus, a central statutory requirement is essential, and the need for a training levy proven. I thank the Minister for allowing the CITB an extended life of five years, thus giving it time to plan strategically for the training function of the future.
A second major development has been the improvement in the economy—[Interruption.] Now that my voice has recovered its full vigour, I hope that the House will be interested to hear about the improvements in the economy. The depth and length of the recession were without precedent. We have been in uncharted territory. The economy seemed to turn the corner, but then it appeared that it had not done so. There are, however, real signs of recovery now. For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, there is good news every day. That shows the difference between now and February of last year, when we were much less certain.

Mr. Graham: The other day I had a visitor from America who was travelling through from England to Scotland. He was appalled by the infrastructure problems that we face in Scotland and England—the potholes in the pavements and roads, and so on. He was shocked to find that the school that he had gone to was in a dilapidated condition and had no money for repairs.
One of the major problems, surely, has been that the Government have not injected enough cash into the infrastructure of public life, thereby employing more plumbers, electricians and builders. It is like the chicken and the egg: the Government are not prepared to train workers because they are happy with the short-term gains that arise from not putting enough money into public infrastructure. We will only get the construction industry going again, with real training, when the Government start putting money into public infrastructure to improve our


roads, schools and hospitals. That will never happen until the Government put their money where their mouth is—that is the only way to get Britain back to work.

Sir Michael Neubert: I was rather surprised, on two counts, to hear what the hon. Gentleman had to say, although I always listen carefully to his interventions. Although the United States has a powerful and successful economy, it also has areas of dereliction that are far worse than any in this country. I saw in a news bulletin from Michigan last night scenes of shocking dereliction. As for infrastructure, I was going on to refer in glowing terms to the Government's policy on infrastructure projects, on which the Government have a proud record.
I identify the following features of the economy as encouraging. First, we have low interest rates. Then, we have a low annual rate of inflation—still below 2 per cent., and we have been below that figure for a record period. We have low wage settlements, high productivity and a competitive currency. All those are ingredients for economic growth.
The building industry, however, is slow to share in the benefits of increasing confidence and expansion. In recent years—notably in the autumn statement 15 months ago —the Government have offered commendable support to major infrastructure projects. That is a welcome boost for the construction industry, but those projects have only limited trickle-down benefits for small and medium-sized builders such as those which make up the membership of the Federation of Master Builders.
The Jubilee line extension is a prime example of a project given Government support. It is tragic that it took a year for the financiers to get their act together, although the difficulties are well understood. The recovery would have been further ahead if this major £1·9 billion project, creating 20,000 jobs, had been under way 12 months ago, but it was not to be. It is a good illustration of our negative news reports that, on the day that the project was clinched, it did not feature on the BBC's nine o'clock news until 9.25 pm, and then only fleetingly.
Crossrail is another project to which I hope the Government will give whole-hearted backing. It combines private and public finance and it could transform transport in London, enabling all those Americans who pass through on their way to Scotland to enjoy efficient public transport.
To show the state of the building industry I should like to draw attention to a submission made by the Building Employers Federation and the Federation of -Master Builders. The submission was made jointly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27 October last—only three months ago, since when I am assured the position has not changed much.
Those organisations reported to the Chancellor:
output has declined for 13 consecutive quarters since the beginning of 1990, making this the longest recession since the 1930s; the value of output is now over 15 per cent. down on its peak, a significantly larger fall than in most other industries; the housing market is still very fragile with sales well below expectations; employment in the industry has fallen by about half a million since 1989, and there have been additional cuts in employment in our associated professions and in the building materials industry; the length and depth of the recession has in turn led to very substantial and damaging reductions in our training and recruitment programmes for both apprentices and graduates. This now threatens the future capability and capacity of both small and large firms".

As I have already said, there is little prospect of improvement—indeed, there has been none in the past three months, as shown by the most recent state of trade surveys.
The building and construction industries are always the first to be hit by recession, they are always hit the hardest and they always take the longest time to emerge into recovery. Let us not overlook the importance of the industry to Britain, however. In 1992, the recession notwithstanding, the industry had a total turnover of £47 billion, or about a tenth of Britain's gross domestic product. Construction amounts to about a third of the nation's manufacturing base and even in this recession it continues to provide about 1·4 million jobs. A tenth of the entire population depends directly or indirectly on the construction industry.
Moreover, construction accounts for half of Britain's fixed investment and it has a crucial role to play in extending and improving our economic and social infrastructure. There is a widely recognised need for new investment and for more maintenance work on housing, on school and hospital buildings, on roads and factories and on other areas of construction work. To that extent at least I can agree with the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham).
The order is to be welcomed, but I have two reservations about it. I apologise for the fact that they are repetitious, in the sense that I have inevitably made these points before, but they remain relevant. The first criticism is that the order provides for the threshold for exemption to be increased, from £45,000 to £61,000—the intention being to exclude firms with four workers, whereas the number used to be three.
At a time when the Government talk of the need for increasing training it is ironic and contradictory that, by means of this exemption, they should reduce the obligation to contribute to the costs of training. No fewer than 35,000 businesses are estimated to be excluded from the levy—businesses effectively in receipt of subsidy for training from the rest of industry.
The raising of the ceiling reduces the board's income by £1 million. I agree with the hon. Member for Stretford that it is unfortunate, at a time when we want more training and recognise its importance, that we should start by giving the board a new lease of life for five years but then reduce its income. It is estimated that a nil threshold under which everybody would be required to contribute would yield £8·5 million. That would give a significant boost to training, and it would be money from the industry and not from the public purse.
The Federation of Master Builders represents many small and medium businesses, and it may seem odd that it should support the view that all should contribute. I support that view because I recognise its fairness. Competition is distorted because some businesses have to pay the levy. It is a small amount compared to the funds with which those firms manoeuvre, but is another competitive disadvantage for small and medium businesses that are liable for the levy. That is obvious from my earlier illustration about the level of turnover for VAT registration, which was likewise increased by the Chancellor to £45,000. The same considerations apply because revenue is lost.
In a parliamentary answer on 16 December, the Paymaster-General revealed that the revenue forgone as a result would be £40 million in the next financial year and £45 million in the following year. It is surprising that, with


the deficit running at £1 billion a week, the Chancellor is willing to forgo that amount. One would have thought that it would be welcome.
It is understood that we want to encourage small businesses: that is the purpose of those policies. However, it could be argued that small businesses should learn from the beginning that the full cost of training and VAT liability are among the expenses that they will have to bear if they survive and succeed. That would be fairer than the current system and would remove the competitive disadvantage of having to charge customers 17·5 per cent. plus the cost of training for work that could be done for much less by a smaller business. Most customers may find the extra amount rather too much to pay. We are not debating the difference between small and large businesses because such an advantage could accrue to a business with four workers and not to one that employed only five. That is where it hurts and the disadvantage must be resisted.
I have reservations about the training and VAT exemptions. I understand that the Minister is not responsible for VAT but she will appreciate how the two come together in the minds of business men who are struggling to survive in this over-long recession. Firms that could constantly exceed the ceilings might be tempted to take short cuts and adopt devices to avoid liability. In such cases, the cash-only-no-questions-asked payment becomes attractive and the black economy beckons.
Despite those disadvantages I welcome the order and I am glad to know that it will give the Construction Industry Training Board another year to plan and execute training in one of the country's most important industries.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: Nobody is enthusiastic about the order, because everybody knows what the Government have been like over the years. It is almost 32 years since the levy raised its head, following a White Paper in 1962 and an Act in 1964. I must declare an interest because I am proud to say that I am sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union. I was also the Scottish political education officer. We carefully examine any schemes that the Government organise, and we looked at the situation in 1962 and again in 1964. When the Government do not agree with a scheme they use a Ways and Means resolution to change an Act and give power to a Minister or a Secretary of State.
In 1973, the Government used the 1964 Act to set up boards. The 1962 White Paper had examined the state of firms throughout Britain and had found that no training whatever had been provided. Everybody knows that a country without a skilled work force cannot survive. Everybody also knows that the country is bankrupt. The Minister said little, but neither did the Minister who produced the orders in 1993. The record of what was said is in Hansard.
The Employment and Training Act 1973 again gave power to the Secretary of State, and he used it to get rid of the training boards. At that time, there were about 27 boards, but now there are only two. The Minister spoke about reviews. The Government have had more reviews on training than any other Government, and the reasons for their reviews were, first, that they could not stomach the trade unions and people in the community being

represented on the boards and, secondly, because they had no control whatever. They gave the power of supervision to the Manpower Services Commission and then removed it when they limited the 1 per cent. levy. They abolished that in the way that they abolished 25 out of 27 training boards.
The two boards that remain have been given a life of five years, but the Government do not really agree with them. That is why the Chamber is empty and why the Minister has little to say about the matter. As trade unionists and socialists, we are interested because our political philosophy greatly differs from that of the Government. They believe in consultation with big business and in consultancies for themselves.
An ordinary Member of Parliament's wage is no use to this lot. They have had their fingers in the till for years and that is why they have bankrupted the country. They wasted money on the poll tax and on other schemes on which they had to turn back. Now they are talking about training.
It is instructive to compare training in countries such as Japan and America with the state of our 16 and 18-year-olds who have to beg in the streets because the Government have taken away allowances for the kids. Their lack of investment has turned Britain into a drug-ridden, crime-ridden country. Anybody knows that a Government who will not invest in houses, schools and hospitals to give bread and butter to the electors will not survive.
We are looking at a fallen House. The Government are out and they know it. They are on the run and that is why they have little to say. The former Prime Minister has moved to the hierarchy and many more will follow, and the Prime Minister is running scared. [Interruption.] I could not say that they have done a good job. I get that message from my union and the workers I support, who are working-class, humble people. They get out of their beds in the morning; they do not go to wine bars and live in other ways. I want to get it all on record to let the Government know the effect of the orders.
The 1994 draft order maintains the arrangements that applied in earlier years, except in one important respect —the exclusion threshold level—which greatly concerns us.
The exclusion threshold provision in the draft order means that employers with annual payrolls of less than £61,000 will not have to pay a training levy, though they will continue to be eligible for training grants. That is unfair to other employers and employees, who should all have the same quality and reserves.
In 1993, the exclusion threshold was £45,000—a figure which was set in 1990, when the exclusion threshold was increased from only £15,000. It was a substantial agreement and represents a considerable loss to the training boards.
My union, the Transport and General Workers Union, opposes the principle of an exlcusion for small employers and objects to the proposed increase in the threshold. The Construction Industry Training Board is also opposed to the principle of the exclusion, as is the Federation of Master Builders, of which I once applied to be a member, and which encompasses 20,000 building firms with more than 300,000 employees, including many smaller companies.
As the levy is set as a percentage of the payroll, it falls proportionately on small firms and large firms. The order sets an exclusion threshold, outlined in paragraph 5 of the


schedule and article 6 of the order, expresses a sum in pounds sterling, which represents the threshold size of net payroll below which employers are excluded from payment of the levy.
An exclusion threshold has been in place for the construction levy since 1971, when it was set at £6,000. So it has moved a long way—from £6,000 to £60,000.
In 1993 and preceding years, the exclusion threshold was £45,000; however, for 1994, the Government are proposing that it be increased to £61,000. The Government's intention to increase the exclusion threshold has been known for some time. In 1992–93, the future of the Construction Industry Training Board was reviewed by the Government and on 23 February 1993, it was announced that the CITB would be reconstituted with effect from 1 May. The Government kept the training board dangling on a string, thereby destabilising its effect on employers.
The Minister decided that the CITB would continue in place for a further five years and would retain its statutory levy powers. The change in the exclusion threshold was announced by a junior Minister at the Department of Employment on 5 May 1993 when he said:
We need to ensure that small firms are relieved of burdens and encouraged to grow. In future firms with combined payroll and payments to labour only sub-contractors of less than £61,000 a year will not be subject to the training levy".
That was bad news for the construction industry.
The Construction Industry Training Board has consistently objected to the principle of exclusion on the grounds of equity and competition. However, it reluctantly accepted on 13 July 1993 the Government's rquirements to raise the threshold, and that was included in its proposals to the Minister. The CITB was worried that, if it did not accept the new threshold, the Government might close the board down, as they closed down the other 25 boards.
The Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors also expressed serious concern at the raising of the exclusion threshold to £61,000. In addition to concerns about equity, it said that the system is open to abuse and it would not be beyond the abilities of some companies to manipulate the figures in such a way as unreasonably to gain an exclusion from payment of the levy.
The Building and Allied Trades Joint Industrial Council, which brings together the Federation of Master Builders and the Transport and General Workers Union, is also opposed to exclusions from the levy. In its submission to Ministers dated 10 November 1992, it said:
The current levy arrangements exclude firms with combined payroll and labour-only subcontracting payments of up to £45,000 per annum".
We know that some firms work the lump and abuse the system. It continued:
This seriously distorts competition. Such excluded small firms derive benefit from the training carried out by other firms, but can claim a grant for their own training. This is inequitable".
The Transport and General Workers Union concurs with that view. The existence of the exclusion challenges the very principle on which the levy is based—that all the firms contribute equitably to the cost of training within the industry. Small firms get all the benefits of the schemes, but with none of the cost.
More than almost any other industry, the construction industry has a need for an equitable training levy. That is because of the short-term nature of much employment in the sector; the high geographical and company mobility of employees; the high levels of skills required in many

sectors of construction; the exceptional health and safety risks to workers in the industry and the importance of ensuring high standards of safety for the public in construction projects.
The CITB estimates that the yield of the levy in 1994 will be £46 million compared with £54 million. That is a big loss to the construction industry and it will mean less training, for fewer people. The decrease is largely a consequence of the decline in construction employment due to the recession; the levy is a percentage of the payroll.
The CITB estimates that the raising of the threshold will represent a loss of income of less than £1 million, but certainly many hundreds of thousands of pounds. The existence of an exclusion threshold also serves to set an informal poverty trap for the industry, whereby firms that can expand to just above the threshold level are penalised for such growth by suddenly having to make payments for all their employees.
The proposed new exclusion threshold represents a fourfold increase on the level less than five years ago of £15,000, yet the training needs of the industry continue to grow. It cannot be right that, when long-term investment in the skills of the work force is so crucial to future recovery, the CITB should lose hundreds of thousands of pounds in income so that even more small firms should be excluded from making a modest individual—but significant collective—contribution to the industry's skills.
When the industry's funds for training are declining, the further erosion by the Government of the levy powers of the Construction Industry Training Board is to be deplored. The Transport and General Workers Union and the Federation of Master Builders are extremely concerned. I read out their comments to put on record every word they said, but they fell on the deaf ears of the Government.
The Opposition are disgusted at the way in which the people of the country and especially the youngsters, have been treated. The House should decide to make a hefty contribution to the construction industry, and every other industry, to retrain our people and to provide us with a well trained and skilled work force of men and women, irrespective of their creed or colour. We will get out of this pit only by investing.
We must build roads, railways, trams, trains, hospitals, schools, police stations and training colleges. That is how to get the country back on its feet. We will not get the country back on its feet by squandering money and looking for as many jobs as, we can get. The Conservatives are into every till in the City. They have been exposed.
The Government have been disgraced. For the past few weeks, they have been embarrassed to come to Westminster. I would not say that they do not know their asses from their elbows because they certainly do—[Interruption.] I said "ass" because I am talking to asses.
I have described what we have to put up with. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House come to this place and work hour after hour. We are telling the Government Front Bench to do its job. The Government should act honourably and pick up their morals.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: We have just heard an extraordinary tirade from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray). He must be living on a different planet if he believes that the


Government have not been investing in housing, roads and other construction projects. He should come and look around my constituency.
I have an interest to declare because the Construction Industry Training Board is located in my constituency at Bircham Newton. If the hon. Member comes to Bircham Newton, he will arrive on a new, electrified railway. He will see a local health authority which has new buildings and facilities which have been created over the past 10 years or so. The hon. Gentleman will see a brand new leisure centre in King's Lynn. He will see that a very large amount of money has been spent on new housing by the local authority and by different housing associations.
If the hon. Member for Provan comes to my constituency in two weeks' time, he will see a start being made on the new A47 bypass around Tilney High End and Terrington. That will be six miles, of dual carriageway bypass just outside King's Lynn. A huge amount of Government investment has gone into East Anglia. The hon. Gentleman should come and see it because it is so important from the point of view of the construction industry. During the recession, the Government have continued to invest in fixed capital formation by way of public projects. Had they not done that, the recession in the construction industry would have been much worse.
In that context, the staff at the CITB in Bircham Newton welcomed last year's announcement.

Mr. Wray: Would the hon. Gentleman like to come to my constituency to see the crime that is rife in the city? The city has a drug problem amounting to £188 million a year. There are 12,000 drug addicts. What kind of world is the hon. Gentleman living in? He is certainly not living in the same world that I am living in. Five thousand people in my constituency have never had a job and will never get a job unless we get rid of the Government. The hon. Gentleman should go and see it for himself.

Mr. Bellingham: As my grandmother came from Glasgow, I go there from time to time. If I were a Glasgow Member, I would be proud of my city and of the fact that, two years ago, it was European city of the year. I would not be talking Glasgow down, I would be talking it up.
The staff at the CITB were extremely relieved by last year's announcement. That sword of Damocles and uncertainty which had been hanging over the CITB had been extremely debilitating. Morale at the CITB had been suffering. The lecturers and other staff had no idea what the future held for them. That is why they were so grateful for the announcement last year.

Mr. Graham: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that the Prime Minister guaranteed in the House that every school leaver would have a training place? However, in Scotland, more than 8,000 young people have not yet received such a place. How can we expect the Government to deliver the goods when they could not deliver the goods to our young school leavers? How can we get folk into training to rebuild the infrastructure?

Mr. Bellingham: I do not entirely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. However, he must bear in mind what the Government have done. When hon. Members say that they are going to vote against the draft order, they must bear in mind that the very fact that the levy has been continued

means that organisations like the CITB can help to provide that guarantee. If that had not happened, the situation would probably have been far worse. Far from trying to suggest that the Government have not done enough on training, the draft order is all about the Government doing more than many people expect them to.
I have always supported the work of the CITB. The complex at Bircham Newton is a centre of excellence which probably has no rival. The commitment and dedication of the staff must be seen to be believed. The impact on the local economy is enormous, not just in terms of local services but in respect of the indirect jobs that have been created.
I did not need to be convinced about the importance of the CITB in west Norfolk and I needed no convincing about the principle of the levy. Construction is very different from other types of industry. There can be training in a factory complex or a plant. However, as construction is so widespread and dispersed, if we did not have a levy which brought money into an organisation such as the CITB, training standards would undoubtedly fall. Above all, there would be serious problems with safety standards.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) explained, the construction industry is a very large employer. It employs 5·5 per cent. of the work force. However, it accounts for 60 per cent. of all deaths caused by falls, in spite of fast-rising safety standards. That statistic shows that if the levy and the CITB had not continued, that figure would undoubtedly be worse.
I welcomed last year's announcement and the fact that the then Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology accepted the arguments from both sides of the House. In that context, I thank my colleagues who helped me in my lobbying campaign.
On this point, I should also like to thank the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), who has been extremely active. Whenever I have asked for his support and asked him to lobby on behalf of the CITB, he has been extremely supportive. I hope that he will visit the CITB in the near future. The campaign was an all-party campaign and it is unfortunate that today's debate has become a confrontation that will result in a Division. We are talking about good news today, which should be supported across the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romford referred to the problems caused by the recession. No industry has been harder hit by the recession than the construction industry. The downturn in housing and new starts in construction generally have had a very damaging effect. As a result, the number of new trainees on CITB schemes has fallen to 10,000. That is roughly one third down on the figure in the late 1980s.
That has meant that the CITB has been under pressure. Pressure has also arisen because the levy is raised on a payroll basis. As many firms have suffered a fall in their payrolls, it is hardly surprising that the levy funds have also decreased.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romford and the hon. Member for Provan have said that it is unfortunate that the threshold exists and that there are exclusions from the levy. I agree. It would be far better to have a blanket levy on everyone because among the firms that benefit most from the training schemes and the work of the CITB are the very small firms. It is interesting and telling that the Federation


of Master Builders, which is represented in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, supports that point of view.
Many small builders resent paying the levy. I receive letters from small builders who want to know why they have to pay the levy. They want to know what the tangible benefits are. The levy is not popular. That the Federation of Master Builders firmly supports the idea of a blanket levy shows great foresight.
During the recession, the CITB was most imaginative. It was able to continue many schemes and build on its excellent work during the 1980s. It has been criticised for using its reserves in funding extra training places. However, that should be applauded. Over the years, the CITB has built up considerable reserves through its levy collections.
One argument was that its reserves were too high. During the recession, at least 2,000 of the 10,000 trainees participating in CITB schemes were funded by its reserves. As a result of that funding, we will have, I hope, enough trainees as the economy picks up and as employment in construction increases. There will also be courses and schemes at further education colleges and other centres as a result of that spending. If the CITB had not used its reserves in that way, the infrastructure of such courses might have collapsed.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Over the past few years, the industry has lost half a million people. I have said before that it is normally estimated that only one out of every two people who leave the industry will go back to work; therefore, 250,000 skilled people have left the industry. Even though I applaud the way in which the board has marshalled and kepts its reserves, I must point out that we are not only failing to train enough people in the construction industry but falling further and further behind with every week that passes.

Mr. Bellingham: To some extent, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Obviously, if there were an increase in training, the CITB in my constituency would expand. We must consider the complex at Bircham Newton and its schemes, and not just the immediate training places that are provided but some of the activities on which the money is spent. It is a huge operation. It would be extremely expensive to extend it in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman and it would mean an increase in the levy. We must ask whether the Government's training budget is realistic. Bearing in mind the decline in the construction industry work force, the CITB should be applauded for maintaining such a high number of trainees—far in excess of the proportionate decline in the construction industry's work force.
I fall out with the hon. Gentleman when he criticises Sir Clifford Chetwood and accuses him of being complacent. About two and a half years ago, Sir Clifford Chetwood criticised the Government and said that they had not woken up to the fact that the recession was biting far more deeply in the construction industry than anyone realised. He is now much more supportive and he is saying that the economy is picking up and that many Government measures are the right measures. One can listen to Sir Clifford Chetwood because his approach has been completely fair throughout. When criticism was deserved, he was critical, but when praise was deserved, he gave it.
The CITB has progressed since the uncertainty was lifted. Uncertainty greatly damaged the moral of lecturers and other staff at Bircham Newton, but they are now concentrating on the task in hand and coming up with many new initiatives. Their initiatives over the past year represent a positive achievement. They have worked very closely with City and Guilds as an awarding body for non-vocational qualifications. More than 30 construction non-vocational qualifications are awarded by the CITE in co-operation with employers in the construction industry. That is very good news. On quality standards, the CITB puts great effort into helping companies to achieve BS5750 certification. More than 400 companies have been helped by a training programme at quality clubs which the board set up two years ago.
Continued investment in pre-vocational educational projects has enabled school children to use construction as a context for learning under the requirements of the national curriculum. There are now more than 70 projects at centres all over the country, and the CITB has been working closely with employers and other educational interests.
I have mentioned how crucial health and safety standards are. Any fatality in the construction industry is a tragedy. Over the past few years, there have been too many fatalities, but I wonder how many more there would have been had it not been for the work of the CITB and the constant emphasis on raising safety standards. The board has come up with a large number of initiatives, and it will continue to do so. The CITB has approached many employers in various occupational sectors. About 300,000 people are registered on industry record schemes, and that excludes those who have registered on the new construction NVQs. That is excellent progress.
I pay tribute to the CITB for using the past 12 months extremely wisely, bearing in mind all the problems that it faced as a result of the uncertainty of last year. That uncertainty has been lifted. It will now continue to exist for five years, instead of three. I welcome that because it will be able to plan for the future and build on the five specific aspects that I mentioned. At the same time, it will move forward in the context of a significantly improving economy with reducing unemployment. The CITB will have a critical role in ensuring that we have a well-trained construction work force.
Rather than regarding the debate as an opportunity for confrontation and a chance to criticise the Government, Opposition Members should give credit where credit is due, and credit is due to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has done all that he can to make sure that the levy continues and that the CITB remains in existence. That is why I support the order.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) has spoken eloquently from his special knowledge of the Construction Industry Training Board. I agree with everything that he said about the effectiveness of that board. I suspect, however, that the Construction Industry Training Board is one of the exceptions that might prove a rule. It appears that the rule now is that the Government oppose industry-specific training boards and industry-specific wages councils whenever they can get away with it,


although they were not able to get away with their original intentions in respect of the Construction Industry Training Board.
It is welcome that the Construction Industry Training Board is to have at least another five years of existence; but, logically, everything that the hon. Gentleman said about the board, which has its headquarters in his constituency, can be applied elsewhere—for example, to the Agricultural Training Board. In Wales—this matter affects my constituency—the Agricultural Training Board is being run down. Its activities are being reduced from a high and active level to what might eventually become nothing much more than a residual level. The board might be driven to dealing with virtually only the aspects of health and safety that it can barely ignore, having regard to the fact that agriculture is even more prone to accidents than the construction industry.
It would be unsatisfactory to conclude the debate without registering our concern that, although the Government are prepared for the boards that we are considering to continue, they are nevertheless not prepared to apply the same logic to other industries.
One of the great advantages of the CITB—the hon. Gentleman highlighted it very well—is that it is focused and industry-specific. It understands everything about its own industry and it is able to undertake research and teach the teachers within its industry.
One of the disadvantages of having a multiplicity of agencies dealing with training—certainly, it is a problem that we face in Wales—is that there is not such necessary focus or specificity. For example, in my constituency we have the Powys training and enterprise council. We have Coleg Powys, the local FE college; the Development Board for Rural Wales; the Construction Industry Training Board; the Agricultural Training Board; the local education authority and others, all involved in training—a multiplicity of agencies which lose their focus in the generality of the training courses that they supply.
I add a comment. If the Minister were listening, she might take this point on board. I should like her comments later. One of the problems that we have with the multiplicity of training agencies is that it is extremely difficult to detect fraud. It is a fact that fraud is taking place in the training structure at present. Some of the companies and firms which are engaged to provide training courses are not doing so competently or even honestly. It is well documented that some organisations are simply fee-churning, taking as much money as possible for the minimum of training provided.
That does not happen in organisations such as the CITB. Of course, the CITB is scrutinised by its own industry. The hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert), who speaks for the Federation of Master Builders, made it clear that his organisation scrutinises as well as supports the work of the CITB. However, that form of focal scrutiny is not available in the generality of training that is available for most other aspects of working life.
Some time ago, a bright but cynical, frustrated and rebellious 16-year-old girl told me that the trouble with the people who taught her was that for the most part, with exceptions, they taught only to perpetuate their own jobs. That may have been an over-cynical view of the education that she was receiving. Nevertheless, it is probably true to

say that education for its own sake is a minority pursuit which is attractive to only a few, and not necessarily all, of the brightest and the best.
I am sure that such cynicism drives away many young people like her from being trained to the careers, or even interests, in which they would make the greatest contribution to society. My view and that of my party is that it is extremely important to give the highest possible priority to that wide scope of training which fits people on the broadest possible basis for the jobs and careers which might be available for them.
I deliberately chose the example of a girl because the Minister referred earlier to apprenticeships for girls. Of course, she is right. It is extremely important that there should be equality of opportunity across virtually all walks of life. It may not be 100 per cent. possible—there may be some jobs which men cannot do—but there should be virtually 100 per cent. availability of training across all walks of life to enable those who may reject other forms of education to maximise their talents and their opportunities.
The continuing economic problems of the construction industry are easily described. It was a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Romford making his third consecutive speech in a debate on this subject. If the hon. Member will forgive me for quoting his words, on 8 February 1993 he said:
Small builders need work now. They are clinging on by their fingertips … It is just as well that the CITB exists, because if the responsibility had been left on a voluntary basis, there would unquestionably have been a very sharp reduction in training—even sharper than has been the case."—[Official Report, 8 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 789.]
Those words are as true today as they were one year ago.
Unemployment in the construction industry has continued to rise over the past 12 months. The statistics are stark. If one looks at unemployment in construction in 1989, it was 6·7 per cent.; in 1992, it was 17·6 per cent.; and in 1993—the latest available figures—it was 20 per cent. Those figures highlight the need for industry-specific training and are evidence that small builders—and, indeed, those who are able to obtain any work in the building industry, especially at the smaller end—are, to use the hon. Gentleman's words, still "clinging on by their fingertips".
How does one maximise the potential for ensuring that, in construction and elsewhere, training is not simply training for training's sake but training for jobs? There is a respected and growing body of academic opinion led by a leading economics professor from the London school of economics who, in an interesting TSB lecture on the subject, said recently that training without the removal of long-term unemployment was a complete waste of money.
What worries many hon. Members on this side of the House is that, although the Government have announced an increase in the number of training places—and anything that takes young people who have nothing better to do off the streets is very welcome, for reasons mentioned earlier in this debate—at the end of the training as it is structured at present too many young people, especially young men, enter a period of long-term unemployment from which some will never recover.
I do not subscribe to the unrealistic view that one can restore real full employment in this country—a situation in which everyone has a job. That is a vision, but not one that can be brought to fulfilment. What is possible is to bring back an element of fuller employment. The element that needs to be brought back is the one which means that practically no one faces long-term unemployment. The


body of academic opinion to which I referred believes that there is no need for anyone, other than rare exceptions, to be unemployed for more than six months. The Government have not yet grasped the nettle of that issue or shown proof that they are dealing with the question of long-term unemployment.

Miss Widdecombe: indicated dissent.

Mr. Alex Carlile: No, the Government have not proved that they have found anything like a solution to the problem of long-term unemployment. One way of starting towards that solution—I recognise that one cannot solve the problem overnight—is to extend the principle of training levies, as my party advocated at the last general election and before. There may need to be exceptions for very small businesses which may not be able to afford such levies. Nevertheless, the imposition of training targets, reinforced by the power to impose levies when companies do not voluntarily meet proper training targets, is a sensible policy and a course which would greatly contribute to the reduction of long-term unemployment.
Sir Brian Hill, then the chair-elect of the Construction Industry Employers Council, said after the last Budget:
Any hopes we had that this budget would help early recovery from the construction recession have been disappointed. In the short-term its effect will be to reduce further workload, jobs and to raise the costs.
There is a myriad of similar quotations and opinion. The CITB tries to stem the tide of that trend, but it is bound to be fighting a losing battle if economic policies are not tuned to ensure that employment can be increased quickly in the construction industry.
The Minister must answer a number of questions when she replies to the debate. Is she satisfied with the state of the construction industry? If not, what are the Government going to do to stimulate the recovery in the industry? Is she satisfied that housing starts are meeting the need? If not, will the Government take steps to reduce the evident housing shortage and to stimulate the construction industry by increasing resources for that industry? There must not be a skills gap, and the CITB, with its specific focus, is the best-equipped body in the construction industry to deal with the skills shortage. Does the Minister think that the same principle might be applied elsewhere in British industry and commerce?

Mr. Thomas Graham: I had not intended to speak in the debate, but after hearing some of the speeches I feel I must bring my wealth of experience to bear in the House.
When I hear Conservative Members speaking, I fear for the future of Great Britain. I certainly fear for our infrastructure, for our young people and for people who have to live in housing which the Government have allowed to deteriorate. In Scotland, damp housing is causing tremendous anxiety and places a huge burden on people who are on fixed incomes and who want to heat their houses. What do the Government do? They sit on their backsides and allow many people to become unemployed, when those people could be reducing Government expenditure and ensuring that folk have a better quality of life and a more healthy life.
Since 1978, I have been an executive board member of an organisation which has worked hard to create training places for young people in Scotland. The organisation has

looked closely at the training needs in Scotland, but I am not here to put in an advertisement for that organisation, which is a voluntary and charitable organisation.
Something has deeply worried me since 1979, when I was a councillor in Strathyclyde, and I will speak about it in my rather nice English voice rather than my broad Scots accent, so the Minister can understand me. I travel around my constituency and around other parts of the country and I concur with a friend of mine, an exiled Scotsman who lives in America, who on his visits back here has seen a terrible deterioration in the country's road network. There are potholes in the roads, and every day I hear of constituents who have fallen and broken their ankles or legs because of broken pavements. Every day I hear of parents complaining that schools are leaking, or that the schools have no books.
Perhaps the Minister does not have eyes to see the problems, but many of us do. The infrastructure of the nation is falling apart in front of us. I should be delighted to take any Minister on a guided tour of my constituency, and I could show the Minister the problems clearly. We have allowed the building industry to deteriorate. Our European partners have more bottle and brains than we have, because those nations are investing in training. While we allow our training and infrastructure to run down, nations in Europe are investing in training, in their young people and in their infrastructure. That training is allowing their folk to gain experience in house building, in sewerage and in water supplies.
I want to make sure that my point is heard and felt. Our European partners—I call them partners, and not the enemy—in France, Germany, Spain and elsewhere are training their work forces. Their training levels have been kept up while this country's training and skill levels have been pushed down. If any major public works jobs were put on the market, we would fall back into the tendering scene. So instead of Scotsmen, Englishmen, Irishmen or Welshmen working on the jobs, it will be Spaniards or Portuguese because those workers will be the most skilled. They will be able to undercut British workers by being able to do the jobs faster and with better quality.
If the Government continue to run down our skill levels, we shall not be able to meet demands to improve our infrastructure. I am a working-class guy. My background is that I was trained as an engineer and I served an apprenticeship on Clydeside. I am not a graduate of any university, but I come from the university of life and the university of experience. That experience tells me that if I want to fix a door now, I need to do it myself. At one time, a skilled joiner would have come along and fixed it in five minutes, instead of me taking an hour to do it. We cannot become a group of do-it-yourself has-been specialists. We need proper training so that our folk can meet challenges.
If we want to build new schools, those schools could be built by the finest workers Britain can produce. We should have the skills to ensure that we do not just build a school, but that we build a school which will withstand the weather and will be comfortable for our young people to be educated in.
We are throwing the baby out with the bath water. The Government have got us into such an incredible mess, with a borrowing requirement of £50 billion which has really blown us out of the window. We seem to be chasing mistake after mistake. There have been the problems in the City, and a lot of money has been squandered. That money does not seem to be going to the right places. I am sure that


the audience tonight could all cite cases where they know of where a construction job could come into being which could make our country a better place to live.
The other day, I went to a photo call for a local newspaper which was rightly campaigning about the environment. If a person drives along a road—particularly in a rural area—what does he see? Rubbish is dumped at the roadside by polluters, some of whom are the fly-by-night builders the Government are encouraging.
We should have proper areas where folk can dump rubbish. That is where we should put in the skills. If we go to the local council, it says, "We can't really do it, we haven't got the money." If the Government would provide the money, we would not have to see our cities, towns, and rural areas being devastated. We could provide skips, dumps and so on which could be controlled and at which skilled workers could work.
I raised a point about Scotland in an intervention in the Minister's speech. I know that we face the same problem everywhere in Great Britain as a result of the Government's lack of action and lack of commitment to the public sector. In Scotland we face a horrific situation. The Government have sought to reduce the standards for drinking water. So the folk in Scotland will be expected to drink water that is not so good as the water in Europe. It is unbelievable that Scotland, which is renowned for its surplus of water, is to be expected to drink water that does not reach the European standard. The Government have done a deal.
The Government themselves have told us that Strathclyde alone needs expenditure of £5 billion to bring the water supply up to standard. We also know that we need to spend a fortune on the sewerage systems in towns and villages throughout Great Britain. We can do that only if we have the trained work force to do the work. At present we can hardly cope with the plumbing in Westminster because we do not have the necessary skilled people. Perhaps the woman Porter could show us how to do it. She could fiddle anything by the looks of it.
We need to ensure that there is adequate training to meet the upturn.

Miss Widdecombe: So the hon. Gentleman acknowledges the upturn?

Mr. Graham: If the Minister wishes to intervene I will give way.

Miss Widdecombe: I should be delighted. Did I hear the hon. Gentleman acknowledge an upturn? Is he welcoming the recovery?

Mr. Graham: I am most grateful for that helpful intervention. I was referring to training for it if the upturn comes. I represent a constituency that has suffered raging unemployment. Factories such as the Talbot car factory at Linwood closed down 10 years ago, putting 5,000 people on the dole. The famous manufacturer of tyres, India Tyres, closed seven years ago, putting about 3,000 workers on the dole. I used to work at Rolls-Royce, where almost 3,000 workers are facing the dole.
I have seen a litany of factory closures and the decimation of the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde. I am desperate for an upturn, not for myself but for the people whom I represent. I wish to see apprentices, shipbuilders

and plumbers back at work. I want to see Britain great again. The Minister should not think that I do not. My ambition is to see my young people get the full potential of their education. I want to see people living in decent houses. I want to see our people able to die in comfort and live in comfort from the cradle to the grave.
Make no doubt about it, Mr. Deputy Speaker: my wish is for Britain to be a good society and a caring and sharing nation. I do not want it to be one which is epitomised by the Government. They simply squander and fritter. I have made some remarks in the House on previous occasions about how I believe that the Government think. They seem to think so small that they have no vision. They have less vision than the people of Britain. I am sincere when I say that the next election—the European election—will show the door to the Tory party.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the training order.

Miss Widdecombe: We have been for a couple of hours.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have not been wide for a couple of hours. The hon. Lady spoke a couple of hours ago. If she had been wide of the order, she would have been out of order—but she was not out of order.

Mr. Graham: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can only say that, perhaps because of my bulk, my vision and my brain are such that I feel sincere and genuine about what I am saying. I do not think that the Minister has been bad with me. I believe that she sincerely wishes to improve the lot of people. But she does not listen to the advice that she receives from the Opposition. She thinks that it is purely opposition. She does not see that we are offering constructive advice and suggestions.
I will finish on this note to the Minister. I believe that the Government's role is to plan as best they possibly can. If we are training young people or any people for that matter, we should not train them for the dole. We should plan for those people to finish their training and find a job. How do we get construction workers through their training and fit them into a job? The private industry is not meeting that need. I do not believe that it has the finance. we are talking about Britain's infrastructure. The Government can take effective decisions today which would start things moving tomorrow and which we could see starting next month.
I have mentioned roads, housing and hospitals. The Government could set up projects to look after the environment and improve our sewerage and water systems. Those are things that we know need to be done. I am sure that the Minister recognises exactly what I am saying. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) asked what was the point of training folk for the dole. I agree that there is no point, but I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with me that we want to improve our infrastructure, which we all know is falling apart. The only person who does not believe that it is falling apart is the "back to basics" Minister. The rest of the country is going back to the wall. When we try to move forward we fall into a pothole. Eventually, we shall have to swim to get across the road.
The recent flooding in England is disgraceful. We have been talking about floods for years. At what stage will the


Government take preventive measures? Folk have been telling us for years that floods will happen. Do the Government use our construction industry—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not referring to training matters, and he should be.

Mr. Graham: I was going to say that we could have trained workers, fully fledged construction engineers and so on, in place working to prevent flood damage. But the Government do not plan. They lurch from crisis to crisis. We shall have an incredible problem in Britain because we will not be able to move for foreign workers building our houses and improving sewage works while our folk are unemployed. That will be because the Government have not given sufficient money to training or educating our young folk to deal with the crisis in Britain.

Mr. Roger Godsiff: I have listened with interest to the debate this afternoon. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) made a telling point when he said that training without a proper programme for employment was in many ways a waste of money. He was right.
The constituency that I represent in inner-city Birmingham has one of the highest rates of unemployment in the country. There are more than 7,000 male adult unemployed in my constituency. There is an enormous need in the constituency for infrastructure development. Apart from having one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, it is one of the most deprived areas of the country.
Like other hon. Members, I welcome the supposed reduction in unemployment in the past few months. The only problem is that no one believes the figures any longer. As everyone knows, in the past 14 or so years there have been more than 30 changes in the way in which the unemployment figures are calculated. Nobody believes the Government's unemployment statistics. It is a matter for regret but it is something over which the Opposition have no control.
However, I know for sure that more than 7,000 people in my constituency have no job. Many of them have been unemployed for a long time, and some school leavers will be added to their number. Very few of them have any prospect of finding a job.

Miss Widdecombe: indicated dissent.

Mr. Godsiff: The Minister shakes her head. I invite her to tell the 7,000 people in my constituency who are without jobs and the school leavers who will soon join the unemployment queue what will happen to them in the future. What are their prospects?
If the Government want to contribute to the country's long-term development, they should put aside other aspects of their policies and accept that it is vital to invest in skills. It is universally acknowledged that the countries which have a skilled, trained work force are those that succeed. No hon. Member, and certainly none of the acknowledged experts, will disagree with that.
It is vital that we have a trained work force to meet the challenges of the next century; but what have the Government done? They have halved the number of apprenticeships, which has resulted in the disappearance of more than 500,000 jobs in the construction industry—that

figure applies to one industry alone. It is absurd that 500,000 jobs should go in an industry that is desperately important to the improvement of the infrastructure which, in many places—not least in Birmingham—is falling apart. [Interruption.] The Minister throws her head back and turns it from side to side, uttering an exclamation. I am more than happy to give way to her if she wishes to respond.
It is part of the arrogance that goes with being in power for 14 years that Ministers do not want to hear what the Opposition have to say. They believe that we are irrelevant and that only the Conservatives have a divine right to rule the country. Arrogance breeds contempt for democracy and, in the past few weeks and months, we have witnessed the Government's utter contempt and arrogance. They do not realise that they are answerable to Parliament and to the people; they believe that they have a divine right to be in power, running the country's affairs.

Miss Widdecombe: We have an electoral right.

Mr. Godsiff: That is true. You have an electoral right, but I was taught that in politics one should listen. You may not always agree with what you hear but, from time to time, you might find that your political opponents have something valid to say. With respect, I must say that the way in which the Minister is behaving now and the way in which she has behaved in the past two hours reveal her contempt for the points made by me, by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and by my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray).
We are not claiming to be the repository of all wisdom, but we have a point to make. Many of our constituents do not have jobs and many of our future constituents will not have jobs. Like you, Minister, we are concerned about the country's future. We believe that we must create a skilled work force, and we will support any of your proposals that help to achieve that objective.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a courtesy in the House whereby we refer to "the hon. Member" or "the Minister" rather than to "you".

Mr. Godsiff: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker; and I apologise to the Minister.
It is vital that we create a skilled work force, but the Government are not attempting to deal with the problem. As I said, the number of apprenticeships has been halved since the Government came to power and there has been a massive loss of jobs in the construction industry. At the same time, in constituencies such as mine, there is a desperate need for improvements to the infrastructure, for the construction of new homes and for improvements to school buildings and health facilities. The Government, however, are presiding over a country in which apprenticeships are declining and in which there is massive unemployment in the construction industry.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) who is parliamentary adviser to the Federation of Master Builders. He spoke with great authority, but there was a contradiction in what he said. He painted a supposedly bright picture of the economy, but also mentioned the opinions of the organisation that he represents. That opinion is, in effect, that small builders are in a desperate plight, are on their knees and need help. The two pictures did not match. I have spoken to many small


builders in Birmingham and I believe that the picture painted by the hon. Gentleman of their being in desperate need of help is the right one.
Most small builders are desperate for work. Many have held on for one year, if not for two years, in the hope that there will be an upturn. For many, there are no reserves left and there is no fallback position. If there is no increase in public investment in Birmingham and areas of great deprivation, small builders will go out of business. I do not care what the so-called official statistics are because I believe in living in the real world, not in the world of statistics concocted by Government Departments—their statistics have been conveniently massaged. I am interested in the real world, and in that world many small builders face losing their businesses because there are no more orders.
Opposition Members do not seek merely to score cheap political points against the Government. We are trying to express a genuine concern and to ensure that we have a skilled work force for the future. I hope that the Government have listened to the valid points made not only by Labour Members but by members of other parties, especially by my very good friend the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. I hope that they will not view our comments with contempt in the belief that only they can be right.
We owe it to future generations to provide them with the opportunity of employment, of obtaining skills and of leading a fulfilling life. If we are not prepared to address the need for a skilled, trained work force, I fear that the future of Britain will not be bright and that the country which at one time led the industrial revolution in the world will be relegated to the status of a third-world country.

Ms Angela Eagle: I begin by congratulating the Minister on upholding what seems to be becoming a fine old tradition of opening debates on training levels with a short speech. I was interested to note that there only were two other speeches from the Government Benches, from the hon. Members for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) and for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), both of whom have specific interests in training. The hon. Member for Romford is a representative of the Federation of Master Builders and the hon. Member for Norfolk North-West has a constituency interest—the siting of a Construction Industry Training Board college in his constituency. They both hinted that they did not agree with the Government's voluntary approach to training and they agreed that there must be intervention in the market to ensure that training takes place.
I associate myself with the passionate comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), and for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) about the useful and effective intervention that planning for training has and the disaster that occurs if it is left to the market.
I was contemplating the meaning of the Secretary of State's recent speech, in which he claimed that going "back to, basics" in the labour market would bring us success, with special reference to our debate on training, and I came across something that may enlighten us. It is a book called "The British Common People 1746 to 1946", a classic of

its kind, by G. D. H. Cole and R. Postgate and it gives an account of one of first apprenticeship systems in the country: the parish apprenticeship system.
That system was introduced at the beginning of the 19th century to try to deal with some of the effects of rapid industrialisation. The book states:
many thousands of children from London and other large towns having become inmates of pauper institutions were shipped in droves to the new factory areas, there to be bound apprentices to some cotton Lord who undertook to feed and clothe them in a barrack built specially for their occupation.
It states that that kind of bonded slave labour
died out rapidly as soon as local supplies of child labour became available; for the factory owners soon found that 'free' labour which they could engage and discharge at will came cheaper than pauper labour which they were bound to maintain throughout the period of apprenticeship, whether trade was good or bad.
That "back to basics" theme still exists in the Government's training policies today.
In many ways, it is remarkable that we are having a debate at all after 14 years of a Government who are notable only for their dogmatic adherence to laissez-faire economic doctrines. Indeed, the period has seen the abolition of no fewer than 21 of the 23 industrial training boards, leaving only the two that we are considering in the debate.
Conservative Employment Ministers come and go, with all due respect to the hon. Lady, but they all intone the same dogma: the state must get out of the way of the private sector, voluntary private provision is always better than statutory provision and the market will, as their gurus always predict, provide whatever the circumstances. We knew what nonsense that was before they tried it and now we have the evidence to prove it. As a result of their neglect and incompetence, Britain now has the worst-trained work force in the European Community. Training has been starved of resources and has suffered a £1·5 billion cut before the past election and has a budget which will continue to decline following the two Tory tax raising budgets of 1993.
Worst of all, the privatisation of 54 skillcentres led to their complete collapse when Astra, the brave, new, private company which was supposed to do a better job than the state ever hoped, went quickly and spectacularly bust, taking all the training opportunities with it.
While that makes the case for statutory provision more eloquently than hundreds of speeches ever could, Astra' s collapse deprived thousands of people of access to any training at all, at a time of historically high and persistent mass unemployment. In addition we have seen a 60 per cent. reduction in apprenticeships in manufacturing between 1979 and 1990—a castastrophic fall, which has condemned hundreds of thousands of young people to a life on the dole. Britain cannot hope to complete in an increasingly high-tech world with the low skills base which we have inherited from 14 years of leaving it to the market.
As Sir John Cassels, formerly at the Manpower Services Commission, said in 1990:
left to itself, the market will function in such a way as to cause a great deal of harm to the interests of young people, companies and taxpayers.
How right he was, and what a pity it is that the Government have chosen not to admit to the wisdom of those statements and act on them.
That is why the Labour party believes that the retention of the two remaining training boards is desirable at the margin; but, to be effective, it must be accompanied by the


creation of a national strategy for training with the work done by the boards being improved and extended to other areas of the economy. We shall vote against the orders because we feel that training provision is inadequate at all levels and is failing the economy.
However, some aspects of the structure of the boards point to the way ahead, some of which were pointed out by Conservative Members in speeches that praised the boards. The work of both boards amply demonstrates the advantages of a collective approach to training, based on co-operation and financed by a levy on employers. It is an approach which we should like to see extended and one which would allow for counter-cyclical measures to be taken in a recession—planning, in other words. At a time when companies are shedding labour and may have insufficient work to justify taking on trainees, special measures could easily be taken to protect training and to ensure that there would be no skills shortages once the recession ends.
That is precisely what the CITB did in 1992 when it spent £6·5 million on doubling the number of entrants to the industry's youth training scheme in the midst of the recession. Before we congratulate the boards too much, we must realise that they managed only to raise the number of places from 5,000 to 10,000. Such planning and counter-cyclical activity is done as a matter of course by our industrial competitors.
The collective active approach which would allow a national strategy of training to be developed and delivered, including adequate provision of the right skills and real achievement in equal opportunities policies, would also allow us to plan for a flexible and well-trained work force. That approach would prevent firms from poaching already trained people and would guarantee that training occurs. That would ensure, importantly, that every firm would accept responsibility, either for financing or for providing training, so there would be no freeloading in an a deregulated industry. That approach would also guarantee the quality of training, and would provide an efficient way in which to deliver high-quality, meaningful and recognised qualifications.
The two boards that we are discussing today ensure the continuing collection of statistics for their industry and their work also include developing databases of trained practitioners for prospective employers to consider. They also do valuable careers advice work to attract school leavers into their industries. Unfortunately, this important work is not going on elsewhere in the economy.
We believe that there was an implicit recognition of the superiority of this interfering in the market, over leaving the market to decide for itself which decimated training last year, in a Government press release announcing the retention of the CITB last year. Hon. Members will recall that, when the House last debated these orders, the CITB was subject to its periodic review. Many of us feared that it would be abolished in yet another spasm of free market frenzy. Significantly, the Government backtracked when faced with the overwhelming support of the construction industry for the board and the levy on employers which finances its activity. Rather than abolish it, the Government reconstituted it for five years.
To reconcile that flight from Thatcherite orthodoxy the then Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), commented in the official press release:

Whilst it remains government policy that sector training arrangements should normally be non-statutory, the government is persuaded that different considerations apply in the building and civil engineering industries.
Those different considerations" turned out to be the casualisation and deregulation of the industry, which has led to a massive increase in subcontracted labour, making it cheaper and more economically rational to poach than to train. Of course, we all know that the outcome of that is a catastrophic collapse in training to the detriment of the whole economy.
Yet, the Government's "back to basics" policy in the labour market is to casualise and deregulate the rest of the British work force. By their own logic, that implies a massive extension of the training board system or a further catastrophic collapse in our already dismal training record.
That press release and the decision to retain the CITB are recognitions of the fact that the Government simply cannot leave the provision of training on a voluntary basis to the whims of the free market. I note that the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board is also currently subject to review and I await its fate with interest.
It is frightening to realise how far behind our major competitors we are in training. In 1989, the then Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), now the chairman of the Conservative party, where I hear he is doing a wonderful job—

Ms Marjorie Mowlam: He has not had enough training.

Ms Eagle: Yes, he has not had enough training.
He reacted to a major report "Training in Britain—a study of funding activity and attitudes" by saying:
It's mindboggling—we still have a mountain to climb.
Five years later, we are still in the foothills and our attempts to scale the peaks have been fatally hampered by a guide who thinks that it will be easier if we all find our own way up.
I do not care a jot for the fate of the Conservative party. Indeed, I hope that it follows the example of its Canadian counterpart into well-deserved oblivion at the next general election. However, I care about our young people and the future of our country. I know that training is vital to ensure the future prosperity of both. As the youngest Labour Member and the youngest woman in the House perhaps I have the advantage over some hon. Members in that I still remember what it was like to be young.
It angers me more than I can say that I regularly meet people in the mid to late twenties who have never worked, and not for want of trying. Their prospects of working are still not improved. The fact that entire generations of our young people have been written off, fobbed off with Mickey Mouse training schemes, denied benefit, and blamed for their predicament by this Government is a matter of record and a serious indictment of Government policies.
I cannot stand the poverty of this Government's ambitions for our young people. They are content to jeopardise all our futures in pursuit of a profoundly mistaken dogma which has brought us nothing but mass unemployment, economic failure and a breakdown of social cohesion. They are content not to strive for the gold medal in training provision and to unlock future prosperity for Britain, but instead settle meekly for the wooden spoon.


It is time to end the experiments with voluntarism. It is time to admit that they have not worked. It is time to create a real and serious national strategy for training.

Mr. Widdecombe: This has been an interesting debate, if a somewhat wide-ranging one. I am surprised to hear the Opposition say, first in the person of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and then in the person of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), that they intend to oppose the orders and to divide the House.
That statement has been made by Labour Members who, throughout the debate, have stood up and said that they represent the "working class". I would not use that phrase because I find it patronising, but they have. [Interruption.] It does not matter how they pronounce the word "class". I think that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) would not say it quite like his colleagues. I look forward to hearing how an hon. Member with his slender majority can explain to his constituents why he will vote against these orders and cause the training boards in question to have less funds for training.
Let us work through what would happen if these orders were defeated. We know that it will not happen because Conservative Members will ensure that the measures are not defeated. What are the Opposition trying to cause to happen by voting against the measures? First, the industry training boards concerned would be able to raise a levy of under 1 per cent. only, because they would not have permission to go ahead with more. Therefore, they would need to use their reserves to maintain a training programme.
Nevertheless, it would lead to a massive reduction in training, a reduction in apprenticeships and a reduction in the adult training work force. It would contribute to skills shortages. There would be no advance towards training for the recovery and for emerging from recession, which several Labour Members told us that they consider, rightly, to be important. There would be redundancies and the board would lose highly skilled staff. If that is the outcome that Labour Members want to achieve by defeating these orders, I look forward to hearing how they will explain that in detail to their constituents.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: First, I will take the Minister outside afterwards and explain to her how this place works. If the Government were to agree with us that the orders should be withdrawn, we would expect them to table orders making proper allowances for those boards. The hon. Lady makes an excellent point in justifying the existence of the training boards in all those industries where the Government abolished them. Does she agree that training was stopped in those areas?

Miss Widdecombe: Given the arrangements that are in place for training within the construction industry and the engineering construction industry, if the boards are not allowed to raise the sums that they wish to raise in order to deliver training that they assess to be necessary, we shall face the situation that I have just outlined. The hon. Member for Stretford says that if the Opposition defeat the

order, the Government will come back and do something different. [Interruption.] What we have done is what the industry—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We need a little training here, or at any rate a reminder that seated interventions, particularly when they are constant, are not acceptable to the Chair.

Miss Widdecombe: I am delighted that such training is being given to the Opposition.
We are doing what the boards have asked us to do. That is what we endeavour to deliver in the House tonight. If Opposition Members are seriously trying to defeat the order, they are going against the wishes of the boards, whom they have been lauding as necessary. Of course they can vote against it, because they know that they will be defeated. That is precisely the sort of irresponsible attitude that has cost them four elections and which causes them to sit in the thoroughly deserved position of the Opposition Benches, where they will stay.
I have been challenged to talk about Astra. The hon. Member for Wallasey stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the collapse of Astra has denied training to hundreds of people. It has done no such thing. It did not have a monopoly. When various branches of Astra were closed, it became the immediate duty and responsibility of the training and enterprise councils to provide replacement training through other providers.
We made a point of asking the TECs concerned whether there were difficulties in finding that training provision. The reason why we asked that was because of Opposition assertions that many people would be without training. We have not received any indication from those TECs that they have had difficulties.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Minister tell us a little more about Astra? When she asked the TECs whether they could find training places after the collapse, did she also ask them to give details of the way that they conspired with Astra to cheat? They were making up non-existent trainees and inventing non-existent jobs for them. All that is well documented. Has the Minister done a single thing to bottom out those allegations?

Miss Widdecombe: We have no evidence of cheating by TECs. What we do have, and what it is right that we should put into place, are proper audit procedures. We audit what the TECs supply, what they claim for and what the outcomes are of what they are claiming for. That system is in place.

Mr. Lloyd: If the Minister is so confident that the auditing procedures are accurate, why has a recent report been highly critical of the TECs and waste? But more importantly, it is well known and well documented that Astra was fiddling. I can provide the information, but the Minister has already had it. Why has she not asked the TECs what went on? When the TECs were happy to allow that to take place and public money was corruptly being abused by that company, why did the Government not ask those questions?

Miss Widdecombe: I part company from the hon. Gentleman. What I was trying to indicate, and my reply was precise, was that there was no evidence of cheating by TECs. The hon. Gentleman has just asked me how TECs could allow that to take place. I do not think—there is no


evidence to suggest it—that there has been deliberate malpractice by TECs. But where anything of that sort arises, and where there is ever any evidence to suggest that public money may have been misused, or that the value for public money may not have been met, that is something worthy of investigation, which would come up through the ordinary audit procedures.

Mr. Lloyd: We are making a little progress. Let me ask specifically whether the Minister accepts that Astra cheated. If so—there is no doubt that it did—why did she not undertake any investigation into what took place? It was public money. It was our money—taxpayers' money. She should have looked after it for us.

Miss Widdecombe: I have already said to the hon. Gentleman that we have audit procedures that trace the money that TECs use, and what it is used for. Those audit procedures are in place.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman cannot understand that when I have said it three, four, or even five times, I do not think that a sixth intervention will take him very much further forward. I should like to answer the rest of the debate, including the points that he has raised.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: No. I am sorry, but I should like to make progress.
The one thing that has come through consistently as a theme from the Opposition tonight has been a picture of gloom and doom about employment and training prospects for young people. I must tell the Opposition that if they had adopted the reasoned tone of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) and said that they wanted to put proper training in place and that they have criticisms about some of the things that are happening, that would be a rather different story.
National vocational qualifications are new. I would be the last to say that there is no further refining or improving to be done. It is quite obvious that there must be. But that is very different from saying that the whole of the Government's strategy and training programme is a Mickey Mouse set-up.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: What strategy?

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, which I understood that Madam Deputy Speaker had forbidden, asked, "What strategy?" I shall tell him. The reason why I want to tell him is not because I do not think that he does not know, but because I want to put on the record exactly what the Government are doing, not only for the young people of this country, but for those of later years. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Any hon. Member who has the Floor is entitled to be heard. It is getting to the point where I am finding it difficult to hear because of mutterings on the Benches. That is not good enough.

Miss Widdecombe: What do you, Madam Deputy Speaker, expect? There are no arguments from the Opposition. Indeed, when the hon. Gentleman started his speech, I thought that I was hearing him reading the same speech that he gave last year. There were no new ideas coming out.
The Government's training strategy is to develop a system of several routes to be available to young people when they leave school, which are then continued throughout life. We want a system where matching vocational training and vocational qualifications run alongside the more recognised route of academic qualifications. What worries me about those who pour scorn on NVQs, and those who deride the skills revolution and the training programme, is that they are encouraging young people and, more importantly, their parents to think that those qualifications and courses—the vocational as opposed to the academic route—are somehow second-class or worthless. They are neither.
At a time when we are trying to encourage parents to look seriously at vocational as well as academic qualifications, it is grossly irresponsible to try to portray NVQs as some sort of unmitigated failure. Even in the critical reports that have emerged recently, there has been a recognition and encouragement of, and total support for, the overall strategy of NVQs.
The skills revolution is recognised by the construction industry. It will be our policy to pursue that skills revolution. But it would be far more beneficial for the people of Britain, for our work force and development, as well as for those who have to teach and train within it, if we could at least go forward with a positive attitude, rather than trying to persuade every young person that there will be no training and no jobs when they leave school. Neither of those statements is true.
We heard many statistics earlier—

Mr. Graham: Will the Minister give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I am longing to come back to the hon. Gentleman, but will certainly give way.

Mr. Graham: Is the Minister reiterating that we are guaranteeing every school kid wherever a training job? By the way, Minister, just for your information, I understand that my boundaries will be changed and that my seat might be safer.

Miss Widdecombe: What we guarantee young people is that there is a choice. They can stay on in education, but the Opposition always pour scorn on that option. It is a solid choice, because 77 per cent. of young people choose to do, or they can find work, and 13 per cent. do that. They can also take up a training place. I have consistently given the House the figures relating to the number of young people who wait more than eight weeks for those training places. That number is going down and I now believe that it is controllable, although I look forward to further improvements. That is the essence of our guarantee.
I want to draw attention to one Government training scheme, Investors in People, which has not been mentioned in the debate. I look to the Opposition to support it, so I shall study their reactions to my remarks carefully. That scheme is designed to train every person within an organisation, whether management or worker, whether he is a full-time, casual or part-time employee. It is geared to train those people in the aims and objectives of their business and to bring on their personal development. It is centred on NVQs level 3. No such programme has ever been introduced by any Labour Government. It is light years ahead of what many of our competitors are practising in Europe.
I have been waiting to see the nods of welcome for that scheme from the Opposition. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde almost managed to nod, but he changed his mind quickly when he saw that none of his colleagues was doing the same. We should all welcome it.
I want NVQs developed to the extent where it should be possible to have two people at a university, one of whom got there via the ordinary academic route while the other gained his place through work-based training and competence. I will not argue that there is no such thing as a further necessary refinement to NVQs. It is a bit of an insult to the lead industrial organisations, however, to those within the Business and Technician Education Council and those connected with City and Guilds to pour scorn on NVQs, which those people may have developed.

Mr. John Spellar: The hon. Lady said that she was waiting for a reaction from the Opposition, but I suppose that we have been absolutely stunned into silence by her statement that we are light years ahead of all other European countries. I do not believe that anyone, even those who have greater faith in the Government's training schemes than we do, believes that we are light years ahead of the German training system.

Miss Widdecombe: As Hansard will show, I did not say, "all other countries". I actually said, "many of our competitors … in Europe". Few of our competitors have the equivalent of our defined national education and training targets. They were the subject of a debate a few weeks ago when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education made it clear, target by target, how the Government were managing to achieve the targets set not by us, but by industry. It knows what targets should be set.

Mr. Spellar: Can the Minister tell us which of those major countries we are ahead of?

Miss Widdecombe: The trouble with the hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will. The hon. Gentleman interrupted just as I was getting to the point that I was trying to make. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] If hon. Members really want to hear the answer, they should listen.
As I was just explaining, we are light years ahead in setting defined targets and having a system of matched vocational qualifications and academic training. The hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) is perfectly right to pick out Germany as a leading example in Europe. What is the essence of the German system? It is designed to run vocational qualifications alongside educational ones. They are given equal esteem. Vocational qualifications are not considered as second class or second choice, but that is what the Opposition have suggested, patronisingly and rudely throughout the debate. They have suggested that those who do not opt for the academic route have chosen a second-class option.
The essence of the German system is respect for NVQs. If we want to compete with Germany, it is time that the Opposition caught up with that sentiment. It is time that they welcomed the measures that we have taken to introduce NVQs.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman is about to welcome the NVQs, I will willingly give way; if he is going to whinge, I will not give way.

Mr. Lloyd: Despite what the Minister believes, the Germans do not have NVQs. They operate a high-quality vocational training system. Many people enter it after they have already completed high-quality academic training. The Minister said that industry supports the current levy system. Can she confirm that it was Ministers from the Department of Employment who told the CITB that it has to raise the small firms exemption? It was not the other way round.

Miss Widdecombe: As usual, the hon. Gentleman has not even bothered to understand the workings of the system. Once NVQs are fully developed, it should, of course, be possible for people to take them after they have undergone academic training and for them to feel no shame about working for that qualification. However, as long as the Opposition portray NVQs as a second-class, low-grade alternative to academic training, people are not likely to want to take such a qualification. That will make the job of making that transfer from academic training to NVQs even harder.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: Does my hon. Friend accept that NVQs are one of the greatest sources of blessing and that hundreds of thousands of people have benefited from that training? Would she care to reflect on where she was on 19 November, when she presented an award for an NVQ to a company in the constituency that I have the honour to represent?

Miss Widdecombe: I will take my hon. Friend's word that that ceremony took place on 19 November, because my memory is not so exact. I remember the occasion, however, and I congratulate the firm.
In the short time left, I wish to answer the hon. Member for Stretford, who asked me about Scotland. He expressed a great deal of derision and asked me whether I knew what would happen in Scotland, because he said that he did.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I did not say anything about Scotland.

Miss Widdecombe: Yes, he did. He said in so many words that what we have proposed will not apply to Scotland. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he is anxious to rush in without ascertaining the facts, whereas I am a bit wiser. In case he has forgotten, he mentioned modern apprenticeships.
Model schemes will be developed by industrial training boards and industrial training organisations to cover Scotland. My hon. Friends in the Scottish Office will meet to consider carefully how best to develop corporate and comparable arrangements in Scotland, based on SVQs, Scottish vocational qualifications. That is the answer for which the hon. Gentleman asked.
The hon. Gentleman said that young people have nothing to look forward to except long-term unemployment. He should note that one quarter of those unemployed leave the register within one month, half leave it within three months and two out of three leave the register within six months. He should stop spreading doom and gloom. He should start putting heart into our young people. He should welcome what we are doing and cringe with shame at the lack of ideas from the Opposition.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister might like to care to listen to what I have to say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because she was pressed on the issue. She seems to be having an argument with the Whip at the moment about why she sat down early. We want to know why there has not been a full investigation into what happened in Astra. She was asked that specific question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd).
The Minister said that auditing arrangements were in place to allow auditors to follow the use of public moneys by training organisations. If so, are we to presume that the people who are responsible for auditing the TECs are equally responsible for going to what remains of Astra to establish precisely what did happen concerning the phantom trainees and the other schemes that it established for the purpose, in effect, of robbing the taxpayer? The Minister herself identified the fact that taxpayers' money was used, and was not fully accounted for in that particular case. Perhaps the hon. Lady will, in the one minute that remains, say whether auditors will examine what happened in the Astra case.

Miss Widdecombe: With the leave of the House, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain how the comments made by two Labour Members can be compatible. The hon. Member for Wallasey said that as a result of Astra's collapse, hundreds of people will no longer receive training—but the hon. Member for Stretford said that training was not real, it was all Mickey Mouse stuff, and we were putting taxpayers' money into nothing. Does the hon. Lady want to maintain a Mickey Mouse set-up, or are we to accept the hon. Gentleman's version? Which is it?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am here to ask questions, not answer them. I put this to the Minister the fourth time. Will an investigation be undertaken of what happened at Astra? The hon. Lady has 30 seconds left to answer from the Despatch Box.

Miss Widdecombe: I might be more impressed by the hon. Gentleman's intervention if he had been present for the debate, which he was not.

It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to order [14 January]:—

The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 272.

Division No. 80]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Batiste, Spencer


Aitken, Jonathan
Beggs, Roy


Alexander, Richard
Bellingham, Henry


Alison, Rt Hon Michael(Selby)
Bendall, Vivian


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Amess, David
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Ancram, Michael
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arbuthnot, James
Body, Sir Richard


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Booth, Hartley


Ashby, David
Boswell, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Atkins, Robert
Bowden, Andrew


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Bowis, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Brandreth, Gyles


Baldry, Tony
Brazier, Julian


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Bright, Graham


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Bates, Michael
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)





Browning, Mrs. Angela
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Burns, Simon
Hague, William


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Butler, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butterfill, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hannam, Sir John


Carrington, Matthew
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carttiss, Michael
Harris, David


Cash, William
Haselhurst, Alan


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawkins, Nick


Churchill, Mr
Hawksley, Warren


Clappison, James
Hayes, Jerry


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heald, Oliver


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hendry, Charles


Coe, Sebastian
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Hicks, Robert


Congdon, David
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Conway, Derek
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Horam, John


Cormack, Patrick
Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Couchman, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunter, Andrew


Devlin, Tim
Jack, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dicks, Terry
Jenkin, Bernard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jessel, Toby


Dover, Den
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dunn, Bob
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dykes, Hugh
Key, Robert


Eggar, Tim
Kilfedder, Sir James


Elletson, Harold
King, Rt Hon Tom


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knapman, Roger


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evennett, David
Knox, Sir David


Faber, David
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Fabricant, Michael
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fanner, Dame Peggy
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fishburn, Dudley
Legg, Barry


Forman, Nigel
Leigh, Edward


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Lidington, David


Forth, Eric
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Luff, Peter


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
MacKay, Andrew


French, Douglas
Maclean, David


Fry, Sir Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Madel, Sir David


Gardiner, Sir George
Maginnis, Ken


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garnier, Edward
Major, Rt Hon John


Gill, Christopher
Malone, Gerald


Gillan, Cheryl
Mans, Keith


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marland, Paul


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marlow, Tony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorst, John
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mates, Michael


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick






Mellor, Rt Hon David
Speed, Sir Keith


Merchant, Piers
Spencer, Sir Derek


Milligan, Stephen
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Mills, Iain
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Spink, Dr Robert


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Spring, Richard


Moate, Sir Roger
Sproat, Iain


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Steen, Anthony


Moss, Malcolm
Stephen, Michael


Needham, Richard
Stem, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Allan


Neubert, Sir Michael
Streeter, Gary


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Sumberg, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Sykes, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Norris, Steve
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Ottaway, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Page, Richard
Thomason, Roy


Paice, James
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Patnick, Irvine
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thumham, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pawsey, James
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tracey, Richard


Pickles, Eric
Tredinnick, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Trend, Michael


Porter, David (Waveney)
Trotter, Neville


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Powell, William (Corby)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rathbone, Tim
Viggers, Peter


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Walden, George


Richards, Rod
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Riddick, Graham
Waller, Gary


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Ward, John


Robathan, Andrew
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Waterson, Nigel


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Watts, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wells, Bowen


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Whitney, Ray


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Whittingdale, John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Sackville, Tom
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Wilkinson, John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Willetts, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wilshire, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wolfson, Mark


Shersby, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Sims, Roger
Yeo, Tim


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)



Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Soames, Nicholas





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.


Ainger, Nick
Bell, Stuart


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Allen, Graham
Bennett, Andrew F.


Alton, David
Benton, Joe


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Berry, Dr. Roger


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Betts, Clive


Armstrong, Hilary
Blair, Tony


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Blunkett, David


Austin-Walker, John
Boateng, Paul


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Boyes, Roland


Barnes, Harry
Bradley, Keith


Barron, Kevin
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Battle, John
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Bayley, Hugh
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)





Burden, Richard
Harman, Ms Harriet


Byers, Stephen
Harvey, Nick


Cabom, Richard
Henderson, Doug


Callaghan, Jim
Heppell, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hoey, Kate


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Canavan, Dennis
Home Robertson, John


Cann, Jamie
Hood, Jimmy


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clapham, Michael
Hoyle, Doug


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hutton, John


Coffey, Ann
Ingram, Adam


Connarty, Michael
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jamieson, David


Corbett, Robin
Janner, Greville


Corbyn, Jeremy
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cummings, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jowell, Tessa


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dafis, Cynog
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Darling, Alistair
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Davidson, Ian
Khabra, Piara S.


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Leighton, Ron


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Denham,John
Lewis, Terry


Dewar, Donald
Litheriand, Robert


Dixon, Don
Livingstone, Ken


Dobson, Frank
Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dowd, Jim
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McAllion, John


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McAvoy, Thomas


Eagle, Ms Angela
McCartney, Ian


Eastham, Ken
Macdonald, Calum


Enright, Derek
McFall, John


Etherington, Bill
McKelvey, William


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fatchett, Derek
McLeish, Henry


Faulds, Andrew
Maclennan, Robert


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McMaster, Gordon


Fisher, Mark
McNamara, Kevin


Flynn, Paul
McWilliam, John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Madden, Max


Foster, Don (Bath)
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Foulkes, George
Mahon, Alice


Fraser, John
Mallon, Seamus


Fyfe, Maria
Mandelson, Peter


Gapes, Mike
Marek, Dr John


Garrett, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


George, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S).


Gerrard, Neil
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Martlew, Eric


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Maxton, John


Godsiff, Roger
Meacher, Michael


Golding, Mrs Llin
Meale, Alan


Gordon, Mildred
Michael, Alun


Gould, Bryan
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Graham, Thomas
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Milburn, Alan


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Miller, Andrew


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Grocott, Bruce
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gunnell, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Hain, Peter
Morley, Elliot


Hall, Mike
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Hanson, David
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)






Mowlam, Marjorie
Skinner, Dennis


Mudie, George
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mullin, Chris
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Murphy, Paul
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Snape, Peter


O'Hara, Edward
Soley, Clive


Olner, William
Spearing, Nigel


O'Neill, Martin
Spellar, John


Orme, Fit Hon Stanley
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Parry, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Patchett, Terry
Steinberg, Gerry


Pendry, Tom
Stevenson, George


Pickthall, Colin
Stott, Roger


Pike, Peter L.
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Pope, Greg
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tipping, Paddy


Prescott, John
Turner, Dennis


Purchase, Ken
Tyler, Paul


Quin, Ms Joyce
Vaz, Keith


Radice, Giles
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Randall, Stuart
Walley, Joan


Raynsford, Nick
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Redmond, Martin
Wareing, Robert N


Reid, Dr John
Watson, Mike


Rendel, David
Welsh, Andrew


Richardson, Jo
Wicks, Malcolm


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wigley, Dafydd


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Rogers, Allan
Wilson, Brian


Rooker, Jeff
Winnick, David


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wise, Audrey


Rowlands, Ted
Worthington, Tony


Ruddock, Joan
Wray, Jimmy


Salmond, Alex
Wright, Dr Tony


Sedgemore, Brian
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert



Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Short, Clare
Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.


Simpson, Alan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Question on the other motion requiring to be decided at that hour:—

The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 267.

Division No. 81]
[7.16 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Aitken, Jonathan
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Alexander, Richard
Body, Sir Richard


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Booth, Hartley


Amess, David
Boswell, Tim


Ancram, Michael
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Arbuthnot, James
Bowden, Andrew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowis, John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Ashby, David
Brandreth, Gyles


Aspinwall, Jack
Brazier, Julian


Atkins, Robert
Bright, Graham


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Baldry, Tony
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Budgen, Nicholas


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Burns, Simon


Bates, Michael
Butcher, John


Batiste, Spencer
Butler, Peter


Beggs, Roy
Butterfill, John


Bellingham, Henry
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bendall, Vivian
Carrington, Matthew


Beresford, Sir Paul
Carttiss, Michael





Cash, William
Haselhurst, Alan


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawkins, Nick


Churchill, Mr
Hawksley, Warren


Clappison, James
Hayes, Jerry


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heald, Oliver


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hendry, Charles


Coe, Sebastian
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Hicks, Robert


Congdon, David
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Conway, Derek
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Horam, John


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cormack, Patrick
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cran, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Day, Stephen
Hunter, Andrew


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jack, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Bernard


Dicks, Terry
Jessel, Toby


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dover, Den
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dunn, Bob
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Durant, Sir Anthony
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
Kilfedder, Sir James


Eggar, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom


Elletson, Harold
Kirkhope, Timothy


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knapman, Roger


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knox, Sir David


Evennett, David
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Faber, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fabricant, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Legg, Barry


Fishburn, Dudley
Leigh, Edward


Forman, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lidington, David


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Lightbown, David


Forth, Eric
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Luff, Peter


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Maclean, David


French, Douglas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fry, Sir Peter
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gale, Roger
Madel, Sir David


Gallie, Phil
Maginnis, Ken


Gardiner, Sir George
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Major, Rt Hon John


Garnier, Edward
Malone, Gerald


Gill, Christopher
Mans, Keith


Gillan, Cheryl
Marland, Paul


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marlow, Tony


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorst, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Mates, Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Merchant, Piers


Grylls, Sir Michael
Milligan, Stephen


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mills, Iain


Hague, William
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moate, Sir Roger


Hannam, Sir John
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hargreaves, Andrew
Monro, Sir Hector


Harris, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus






Moss, Malcolm
Spring, Richard


Needham, Richard
Sproat, Iain


Nelson, Anthony
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Steen, Anthony


Nicholls, Patrick
Stephen, Michael


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stern, Michael


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stewart, Allan


Norris, Steve
Streeter, Gary


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Sumberg, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Sweeney, Walter


Ottaway, Richard
Sykes, John


Page, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Paice, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pawsey, James
Thomason, Roy


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Pickles, Eric
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thurnham, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Powell, William (Corby)
Tracey, Richard


Rathbone, Tim
Tredinnick, David


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Trend, Michael


Ronton, Rt Hon Tim
Trotter, Neville


Richards, Rod
Twinn, Dr Ian


Riddick, Graham
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Viggers, Peter


Robathan, Andrew
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Walden, George


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Waller, Gary


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Ward, John


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Waterson, Nigel


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Watts, John


Sackville, Tom
Wells, Bowen


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Whitney, Ray


Shaw, David (Dover)
Whittingdale, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wilkinson, John


Shersby, Michael
Willetts, David


Sims, Roger
Wilshire, David


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wolfson, Mark


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wood, Timothy


Soames, Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Speed, Sir Keith
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spencer, Sir Derek



Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Andrew Mackay and Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Spink, Dr Robert





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Berry, Dr. Roger


Ainger, Nick
Berts, Clive


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Blair, Tony


Allen, Graham
Blunkett, David


Alton, David
Boateng, Paul


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Boyes, Roland


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Bradley, Keith


Armstrong, Hilary
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Austin-Walker, John
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Barnes, Harry
Burden, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Byers, Stephen


Battle, John
Caborn, Richard


Bayley, Hugh
Callaghan, Jim


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Bell, Stuart
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Bennett, Andrew F.
Canavan, Dennis


Benton, Joe
Cann, Jamie





Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hoyle, Doug


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clapham, Michael
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hutton, John


Clelland, David
Ingram, Adam


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Coffey, Ann
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Connarty, Michael
Jamieson, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cryer, Bob
Jowell, Tessa


Cummings, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Khabra, Piara S.


Dafis, Cynog
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Darling, Alistair
Kirkwood, Archy


Davidson, Ian
Leighton, Ron


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lewis, Terry


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Litheriand, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Livingstone, Ken


Denham, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dewar, Donald
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dixon, Don
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dobson, Frank
McAllion, John


Donohoe, Brian H.
McAvoy, Thomas


Dowd, Jim
McCartney, Ian


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Macdonald, Calum


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McFall, John


Eagle, Ms Angela
McKelvey, William


Eastham, Ken
Mackinlay, Andrew


Enright, Derek
McLeish, Henry


Etherington, Bill
Maclennan, Robert


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McMaster, Gordon


Fatchett, Derek
McNamara, Kevin


Faulds, Andrew
McWilliam, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Madden, Max


Fisher, Mark
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Flynn, Paul
Mahon, Alice


Foster, Don (Bath)
Mandelson, Peter


Foulkes, George
Marek, Dr John


Fraser, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fyfe, Maria
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Gapes, Mike
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Garrett, John
Martlew, Eric


George, Bruce
Maxton, John


Gerrard, Neil
Meacher, Michael


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Meale, Alan


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Michael, Alun


Godsiff, Roger
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Gordon, Mildred
Milburn, Alan


Graham, Thomas
Miller, Andrew


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morgan, Rhodri


Grocott, Bruce
Morley, Elliot


Gunnell, John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Hain, Peter
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hall, Mike
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hanson, David
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hardy, Peter
Mudie, George


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mullin, Chris


Harvey, Nick
Murphy, Paul


Henderson, Doug
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Heppell, John
O'Hara, Edward


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Olner, William


Hinchliffe, David
O'Neill, Martin


Hoey, Kate
Parry, Robert


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Patchett, Terry


Home Robertson, John
Pendry, Tom


Hood, Jimmy
Pickthall, Colin


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pike, Peter L.


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pope, Greg






Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Steinberg, Gerry


Prescott, John
Stevenson, George


Quin, Ms Joyce
Stott, Roger


Radice, Giles
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Randall, Stuart
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Redmond, Martin
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Reid, Dr John
Tipping, Paddy


Rendel, David
Turner, Dennis


Richardson, Jo
Tyler, Paul


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Vaz, Keith


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Walley, Joan


Rogers, Allan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rooker, Jeff
Wareing, Robert N


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Watson, Mike


Rowlands, Ted
Welsh, Andrew


Ruddock, Joan
Wicks, Malcolm


Salmond, Alex
Wigley, Dafydd


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wilson, Brian


Short, Clare
Winnick, David


Simpson, Alan
Wise, Audrey


Skinner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wray, Jimmy


Smith, C. (Isl'on S & F'sbury)
Wright, Dr Tony


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Snape, Peter



Soley, Clive
Tellers for the Noes:


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Eric Insley.


Spellar, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.

British Waterways Bill [Lords]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the British Waterways Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private 13ill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read for the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the last Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the last Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I recall that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were in the Chair when we debated the Second Reading of the Bill. We therefore seem destined to be bound together by British Waterways. It is not a bad thing to bind us together. It is an admirable organisation and I am delighted to be associated with the Bill.
British Waterways does a great deal of good work. The canal system is close to the hearts of many people in Great Britain because it is the oldest canal system in existence and because many people derive a great deal of recreational enjoyment from it.
Since Second Reading, two significant events have occurred. The first is the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The second is the retirement of the then chairman of the British Waterways Board, Mr. David Ingman. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all his work as chairman of the board. He has been a doughty champion of the waterways and there is no doubt that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's conclusions are a reflection of his contribution.
The conclusions of the MMC report found that there had been a transformation in British Waterways since its 1987 report. The MMC finds that British Waterways has made good progress in the development of business planning, the introduction of waterway standards, the revision of project control guidelines and the introduction of a new computerised accounting and reporting system. It has changed from a centralised organisation orientated towards administering a grant to one developing a strong commercial outlook. The MMC commends British Waterways and its staff for their work and I, too, commend them.
I said on Second Reading that the Bill was about safety. The key to the revival motion is that those issues are just as important as they were then, if not more so. Therefore, as the Committee has spent so long considering the various issues, there are strong arguments for it to complete its work and let the House decide.
Technically, it is not the function of the House to debate the merits of a Bill on a revival motion. As in all cases, they were examined in some detail on 17 May 1993. Hon. Members drew attention to several elements which were causing them or their constituents problems, and I will explain in due course what British Waterways has done to help resolve them.
British Waterways is responsible for maintaining the fabric of our 200-year-old inland waterway system and its inheritance from the original canal proprietors included 2,000 miles of waterways, 1,500 miles of continuous towpaths, more than 4,700 bridges, 450 tunnels and aqueducts as well as 2,100 listed structures and monuments and 64 sites of special scientific interest.
The Bill is about securing the future of that inheritance and of the availability of the waterways for public use. It is promoted by British Waterways primarily to safeguard waterway users and the owners and occupiers of adjoining land to create new conservation, environmental and recreational duties and to enable British Waterways to manage the waterways more effectively and to generate more income for reinvestment in them.
The House will appreciate that the timely repair of waterways and associated works is essential in the interests of public safety, particularly in emergencies which give rise to the risk of serious dangers to persons and property. It is generally accepted that there is a need for specific powers granting those authorised by the board the right to enter land for such purposes. Landowners' and farmers' representative bodies such as the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union agreed a code of practice as to how entry should be effected in such circumstances.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Everyone accepts that there is a need for that power. I wonder whether there are any instances where the power is not being granted in practice. Some of the first canal Acts go back to about 1730. It seems puzzling if in all the time since then that power was never needed. No one has ever been able to quote to me an example where the lack of that power resulted in difficulties.

Mr. Jones: There have been some close-run incidents. It is necessary to take the appropriate level of risk assessment and it is therefore important to have those powers.
Hon. Members will recall that the subject was referred to in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report of May 1987 which drew attention to the fact that British Waterways has no effective statutory rights of access over private land, even in the direst emergency when life and property might be endangered. In that respect, the board is unusual among statutory undertakers in having no general powers to enter land even to deal with such emergencies.
In contrast, the National Rivers Authority can effect entry on to premises for the purpose of carrying out its water resources function and to act without notice in an

emergency. Is its capacity as a navigation authority, the NRA is in a different position from that of British Waterways because the natural rivers for which it is mainly responsible—it has only a few canals—do not present the same risks.
Of particular concern is the stability of canal embankments where serious difficulties can occur if there is over-topping and erosion of the embankment, or if tree roots penetrate the lining of the canal, leading ultimately to instability and collapse of the embankment. In my speech on Second Reading I mentioned the example of the breach on the Lancaster canal caused by tree root penetration.
Since that debate, it has come to my attention that Scottish National Heritage, which was formed in 1991 by the amalgamation of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Countryside Commission for Scotland, was given express powers of entry to land in the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991, even for such apparently mundane activities as surveying land and estimating its value. The Act also conferred similar powers on river purification authorities and others for the purposes of discharging their functions, including entry on to land in emergencies.
Given the volatility and destructive power of the water in the canals, it has to be equally or more important for British Waterways to have the same powers and that the obstruction of their exercise should be deterred, as proposed in the Bill, by the risk of prosecution as in the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991.
Part III of the Bill would impose new minimum fire and safety standards on boats and prevent pollution of the waterways. Home Office statistics show that between 1983 and 1988 there were more than 500 fires on boats on inland waterways.
I referred to a particular spectacular example in my speech on Second Reading. It occurred on the River Thames at Radcott in the April 1993, when a cabin cruiser caught fire and was completely gutted. The fire endangered other craft moored at the site and the owners of the vessel suffered burns. It was only due to the heroic efforts of an off-duty ambulanceman who got into the water and pulled the flaming boat away that a much more serious incident was averted.
The cause of the fire is believed to have been the escape of excess fuel from an ill-fitting carburettor. The fuel was ignited by the ignition spark of the engine. If the vessel had complied with the boat safety standards, the electrical system in the engine space would have been ignition protected and the excess fuel would have not ignited.
The boat safety standards will require all hire and pleasure boats on British Waterways' system to meet minimum safety requirements before they are permitted to come on or stay on the waterways. They are now referred to as harmonised standards as they have been adopted by the National Rivers Authority and the Broads Authority as well as a number of other navigational authorities.
There have been other incidents since the boat safety standards were last debated in the House. On the Aire and Calder navigation at Stanley Ferry in August 1993, a 35 ft long narrow boat exploded, blowing off a 15 to 20 ft section from the back of the boat. The explosion blew a transom across the canal. It was fortunate that the boat was not moored facing in the opposite direction as the transom would then have blown into the pub adjacent to which the boat was moored.
It is believed that the explosion was caused by a leak of liquid petroleum gas from a gas bottle. The gas locker in which the bottles were stored was not gas-tight and therefore did not vent the leaking gas overboard as will be required by the boat safety standards scheme. As a result, the gas leaked into the body of the vessel and was ignited by the pilot light of the gas refrigerator on board. That explosion would not have occurred had the vessel complied with the board's safety standards scheme.
Another incident involving a leaking gas bottle occurred on the Bridgwater canal at Agden wharf in December 1993. Here again, the boat safety standards scheme would have required overboard venting as in the case of the Stanley Ferry incident. There was no such venting and an explosion and fire destroyed a 70 ft narrow boat.
Fortunately, no one was hurt in either of those explosions. The Manchester Ship Canal Company which operates that waterway has for several years been following the lead of British Waterways in implementing the boat safety standards scheme, which is clearly desirable in the interests of all the users of waterways, whether or not they are on vessels.
Environmental and recreational duties are close to my heart. Clause 23 will discharge an obligation, which has been accepted and supported by the Government, that British Waterways should be subject to the same general environmental and recreational duties as the NRA and the privatised water and sewerage companies. The clause is directly adapted from section 8 of the Water Act 1989 and it uses the same language.
The report on British Waterways by the Select Committee on the Environment, which was published in August 1989, recommended that a duty similar to that under section 8 of the Water Act 1989 should be applied to the British Waterways Board. The Government endorsed that recommendation in their response in February 1990 and it is now before the House.
Following Second Reading, British Waterways had further discussions with those who at the time still had outstanding petitions. The majority were concerned about proposals embodied in clause 27 for the extinguishment of a variety of unexercised rights which had been conferred on landowners and others at the time of the original canal enabling Acts passed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
The extinguishment of those rights was designed to create certainty where there was none and to permit the board to make the best possible use of its property-assets. Those provisions in clause 27 were often, the only remaining barriers to the withdrawal of a considerable number of petitions, including several on which the parties had otherwise reached agreement. Therefore, the board decided after careful consideration to propose to the Select Committee the deletion of clause 27 in its entirety. Having given the petitioners concerned assurances to that effect, virtually all the outstanding petitions were withdrawn immediately after the Committee proceedings opened.
It would be idle to assume that the withdrawal of clause 27 has solved any difficulties other than those encountered in the promotion of the Bill. The problems which the actual or theoretical existence of the ancient unexercised rights created for British Waterways will not go away. A vivid example of that was given to the Select Committee when the Bill was in the other place.

Mr. Martin Redmond: The hon. Gentleman said that the vast majority of petitioners have now withdrawn their objections. Are some petitioners still objecting and, if so, why?

Mr. Jones: I will address those points in due course.
As I was saying, a vivid example was given to the Select Committee when the Bill was in another place. It concerned a 30 acre site intended for comprehensive redevelopment adjoining the Trent and Mersey canal. The developer wished to drain the whole area into the canal, which was on a steep embankment, by means of an existing outfall and claimed to be entitled to do so as a right under the enabling Acts for that canal.
British Waterways' engineers calculated that in a one in 25 year storm the available freeboard in the canal at the lowest point on that pound would have been used up within 15 minutes, leading to the immediate over-topping of the towing path by the storm water and to the failure of the embankment. A breach there would have had catastrophic results which would have affected houses, a public house, a filling station and a factory on the road below, posing serious risks to life and property.
To avoid those consequences, British Waterways calculated that an overflow pipe would need to be installed to carry the surplus water to the nearby River Trent. At a conservative estimate, it would have cost more than £85,000 for the engineering works alone, the cost of land acquisition being in addition. The only beneficiary would have been the developer himself, and no benefit whatever would have accrued from the expenditure to the waterway or its users. It is perhaps fortunate that the Japanese backers of that development decided to invest their funds elsewhere, so the problems did not materialise.
Nevertheless, such problems could arise again, either at that or many other locations on the waterways system. For that reason, and because British Waterways believes that the existence of such rights and the exercise of them in modern conditions could be actually harmful to the maintenance and integrity of the waterways, the following statement was made to the Committee when British Waterways sought to withdraw the clause:
Clause 27 of the British Waterways Bill would have extinguished certain rights conferred on riparian owners and others by early Canal Acts passed in the 18th and early 19th centuries. The rights in question included rights to construct works affecting canals, drainage and abstraction rights and also sporting and fishing rights and rights to use pleasure boats which by now are unenforceable or else incompatible with modern legislation.
The clause was included in the Bill as claims to exercise such rights could lead to severe operational and other difficulties, including the impairment of safety. It is moreover extremely difficult in modern circumstances to determine who, if anyone, is now entitled to the rights. For all these reasons the Board decided that clause 27 should extinguish the rights completely.
After a full hearing before the Opposed Committee of the House of Lords, the Committee found that the case for the clause was proved. The clause was further amended following third reading in the House of Lords but was allowed to remain in the Bill.
Following the First House Committee stage, clause 27 continued to be controversial. Petitioners and others have represented that they would be prejudiced by the clause, if it were to become law in its most recent form. Attempts to reach some form of agreement with all those who opposed the clause have in most cases been unsuccessful. All these factors have required the Board to re-examine the basis of the clause and the wider questions related to it in the light of representations made. In


these circumstances, it has been decided to seek leave of the Select Committee of the House of Commons to withdraw clause 27.
In seeking to withdraw the clause, the Board are conscious that the difficulties which it was intended to remove still have to be resolved. They therefore wish to emphasis that they may have to promote legislation in the future on the subject of ancient rights, and works and activities affecting inland waterways. Any such powers will be sought following a wide consultation exercise which will enable those who have petitioned against clause 27 to express their views on any new proposals.
Clause 27 petitioners apart, when the Committee stage began on 26 June 1993 the possible maximum number of outstanding petitions was seven, of which five were lodged by individuals and two by fringe houseboat groups. I say the "possible" number because some of those concerned did not reply to correspondence and the board was unable to determine whether they were minded to continue their opposition. In the event, four individual petitioners presented themselves to speak to their petitions.
So far, the Committee—under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie)—has sat for a total of 13 whole or part days and the record of its proceedings extends to more than 800 pages of transcript. It is almost at the end of its examination of the Bill, but it is understood that the members of the Committee may rightly wish to go out on visits to see something of the canal system and to take further evidence from two of the petitioners, who are no doubt as anxious as the promoters to see the resumption and completion of the Committee's examination of it.
All concerned have invested considerable time and money in the project—a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who is a member of the Private Bill Committee and who asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for this debate.
In the form in which the Bill went into the Opposed Committee, it had the support of all British Waterways' principal user groups, including the Inland Waterways Association" the British Marine Industries Federation, the Association of Pleasure Craft Operators, the Royal Yachting Association, the National Association of Boat Owners and the Residential Boat Owners Association, which are all completely independent of British Waterways and are rightly regarded as the representative bodies of users.
They are all frustrated and perplexed that the Bill Committee cannot be allowed to get on with and complete its job unless this motion is passed tonight. Any hon. Member who continues to have reservations about any elements of the Bill will have an opportunity to raise them at the next stage when it returns to the Floor of the House for further debate.
Quite apart from the energy that has gone into the promotion of the Bill, 1993 has been a busy and eventful year for British Waterways. The appointment of the ombudsman, which I announced in my speech in opening the Second Reading debate, was made later in the summer and took effect from 1 September. The board's choice for the appointment was Lady Ponsonby of Shulbrede, a practising barrister and fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, who has considerable experience in the resolution of disputes—even if they are not related to waterway management. Her appointment was welcomed

by the users of the board's waterways. She is accepted as entirely independent. I am told that she already has a modest case load of complaints to investigate. Unlike other organisations investigated by other ombudsmen, British Waterways has agreed to be bound by the waterways ombudsman's findings.
The year 1793 marked the height of canal mania, when 62 different canals—more than half the canal system—were being planned or built, and dozens of private Acts authorising their construction were passed by Parliament. The construction of the canal system, Britain's first transport network, was one of the main factors leading to the industrial revolution. Many major towns and cities, such as Birmingham and Stoke-on-Trent, owe their existence to canals.
One of the Acts was for the Grand Junction canal, now part of the Grand Union canal, which last year celebrated its bicentenary in a number of diverse ways, including cavalcades, rallies and the opening of the long-distance towpath walk from London to Birmingham. "Canals 200", as British Waterways called those year-long festivities, was devised and organised by British Waterways to celebrate that significant bicentenary. It was the largest nationwide celebration ever held on the canal system. As the Grand Union canal runs the length of my constituency, I was particularly delighted at that.
There were 175 "Canals 200" festivals, open days, exhibitions and events throughout the canal system in 1993, attended by 620,000 people. British Waterways had a presence at all the events, ranging from banners and small display and information units to the major "Canals 200" exhibition. In May, major festivals were held simultaneously in Gloucester, Rickmansworth and Nottingham to launch the celebrations. In July, the Royal Mail issued the first inland waterways commemorative stamps. The "Canals 200" touring exhibition is visiting major museums. "Canals 200" has been extremely successful in raising the profile of inland waterways in the minds of the public.
The campaign has quadrupled British Waterways' national media coverage, reaching an estimated 14 million people. The promotion has been a great success, and links have been formed with local canal societies, inland waterway groups, hire boat operators, museums and others. That has encouraged British Waterways to extend the celebrations through 1994—the bicentenary year for 14 Acts of Parliament. British Waterways is currently working with volunteer groups throughout the canal system to help publicise and organise boat rallies and festivities in celebration of "Canals 200".
British Waterways is also planning to extend its network of cruising waterways by applying for a ministerial order to upgrade the Sheffield and Tinsley canal from remainder to cruising status. The almost derelict canal basin, lying virtually in the centre of the city of Sheffield, is at the heart of an overall redevelopment scheme that will lead to the refurbishment of historic buildings, the dredging of the adjoining waterway and the repair of its walls, and the total regeneration of that part of the city.
The canal and basin are integral to, and a vital component of, the regeneration project, which has the active backing of the Sheffield development corporation and Sheffield city council. The reclassification of the waterway and the guarantees it holds for its future management by British Waterways will be a crucial


element in the attraction of investment for the overall redevelopment, as has been the improvement and upgrading of the waterway itself.
The year 1993 also saw the return to British Waterways of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which published its report on 7 January this year. It found that there had been a transformation in British Waterways. The report, which was nearly 300 pages long, contained almost 50 recommendations that British Waterways hopes will help it to continue to make improvements. That is the purpose for which British Waterways embarked on the promotion of the Bill in 1990.
While the promotion has not been without its difficulties, many of us are now aware of the considerable groundswell of opinion in favour of its enactment. Many hon. Members have received letters to that effect from British Waterways' representative user groups, which generally regard the intervening years of debate and negotiation as having been well spent. From that, a much greater understanding has grown among users of the board's problems, and vice versa. It has given solid commitments to the citizens charter, a leisure and tourism strategy, and other commitments on which all users can rely.
An enormous amount of progress has been made on a system that, as I said, provides a great deal of pleasure for many people, but the main considerations that underlie the Bill are ones of safety. That matter has rightly been addressed at considerable length by the Committee. It wants to complete its deliberations, which is important for the future of the canal system. I therefore have no hesitation in commending the revival measure i.o the House, and I hope that the House will support it.

Mr. Bill Etherington: I declare an interest because I have sat on the Committee for 13 sittings encompassing more than 50 hours of careful consideration of the facts. I ask the House to continue to place faith in my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) and the hon. Members for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter).
I think that it is in order to use the word "colleague" in referring to the three other people who sat on the Committee with me. I pay tribute to their painstaking conscientiousness and the courteous manner in which they dealt with a difficult private Bill. As you would expect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not wish to speak about the merits of the Bill, but I ask the House to give my three colleagues and me the opportunity to complete our work and to give the House the opportunity to consider whatever decision is reached by the Committee.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I understand that my hon. Friend and his colleagues on the Committee wanted to make a number of inspections as part of their work on the Bill. I understand that some difficulties arose in that regard. I find it incredible and shocking that a parliamentary Committee that wants to conduct investigations at its own cost and through its own organisation should have any impediment put in its way.
I understand that the Committee has made several attempts to organise that search for information. As British Waterways is seeking a carry-over motion, now is the time to ensure that there is maximum co-operation from every

conceivable party, or difficulties may arise over that motion. My hon. Friend could help the House by outlining the difficulties that have arisen.

Mr. Etherington: My hon. Friend has stolen some of my thunder. I agree with what he said and shall explain the matter further. I had an impression throughout the Committee that there was a sense of haste among the Clerks in the Private Bill Office. I am not aware of who decided how long the sittings on the Bill might take, but whoever it was underestimated the Bill's complexity and the work involved, with members of the Committee wanting to cross-examine and clarify every possible issue.

Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend mentioned the Clerks in the Private Bill Office. I have always found them extremely helpful in the way that they conduct their business, especially in dealing with problems on private Bills, as the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is aware. Given that accord exists among members of the Committee—they have been spoken of in glowing terms—who objected to the visits? If it was British Waterways, it ought to know better. I cannot believe that the Clerks stopped hon. Members from paying visits that would help them in their deliberations.

Mr. Etherington: I must agree that the Clerks have been very helpful, but coming up with an acceptable decision or advice can sometimes be a different thing, as I am sure hon. Members are aware.
A majority of hon. Members on the Committee thought that it would be necessary to pay a visit because the legislation in Scotland differs from that in England and Wales. We felt that many issues required us to see for ourselves what was experienced. Even though they might have the best imaginations in the world, no members of the Committee have had much experience of canals or canal people.
The people concerned with this matter, whether they were in favour of or against the Bill, have done their very best and have been most helpful, and I praise them all. We felt that it was necessary to have a site visit. We were told categorically that visits were not allowed in respect of a private Bill. We persisted informally with that line and we were told that the Chairman of Ways and Means would not sanction such a visit. At that stage, our proposal was fairly tentative.
The Chairman of the Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie)—and I, with the permission of the two Conservative Members involved, approached the Chairman of Ways and Means. As always, he was very sympathetic, helpful and courteous. We came away with the impression that the matter would not require further clarification and that we would get satisfaction, but time rolled on and no arrangements have been made. For a variety of reasons, sometimes two or three Committee members were not available. On other occasions, we changed our hours to suit petitioners, many of whom came to the House at their own expense and at great inconvenience. We are no further ahead.

Mr. Cryer: I wonder whether I might suggest a solution. All that my hon. Friend's Committee wants to do is to travel within the United Kingdom to look at canals. There is a very big industry in fact-finding tours from this place to the far ends of the earth. My hon. Friend should apply to the Liaison Committee to go to, let us say,


Macclesfield to examine the canal there. He might be able to go there via Japan, Australia and America, financed by the Liaison Committee on a round-the-world tour, because that is the sort of facility that the Committee provides. It would be a long way around. It is staggering that my hon. Friend cannot find a way of travelling inside the United Kingdom when jumbo jets carry hon. Members all around the world.

Mr. Etherington: I enjoyed my hon. Friend's intervention. Members of the Committee have never dreamt of such a thing. I should have spoken to my hon. Friend earlier. Perhaps I have been unfortunate.
My colleagues and I regard ourselves as having been appointed to the Committee by the House. We are not on the Committee for the Government or for the promoters; we are on it for the benefit of the people whom we represent collectively—not only our constituencies but our nation. We have tried to do a thorough, proper job. I feel very strongly about the matter. It is a serious matter, although there is an amusing side to it.
If the Private Bill Committee becomes inquorate, those responsible could be brought before the House to explain themselves. I regard myself as an honourable person. I should rather explain why I shall do something than try to make excuses after it has been done. I should like to hear the rest of the evidence. There is only the case for the promoters to be summed up, after which we shall deliberate and reach a conclusion, but I am not prepared to deliberate and reach a conclusion unless we can make a site visit. That is not blackmail. I ask the House to resolve the matter so that I can carry out my duties in the way that I should.

Mr. Redmond: It is important that clarification be given, and my hon. Friend has partly done so. The Clerks in the Private Bill Office were in order in the conduct of their business, and I assume that the Chairman of Ways and Means is in order. Obviously, whoever controls the purse strings has delayed the progress of the Bill; otherwise, we would not be debating this matter tonight. If inspections had taken place as requested, the Bill could have been dispatched.
Was British Waterways requested to finance the trip or to make arrangements for it? The people involved have been most helpful to members of the Committee in letting them find out at first hand what is involved.

Mr. Etherington: I shall correct a misapprehension for my hon. Friend. The issue of the visit has not delayed the Bill's progress in any way. We would be in exactly the same position: if the visit had been allowed, we would still not have had time to deal with the matter before the end of the Session. As I have explained, we have tried to accommodate petitioners. Occasionally, the promoters' barrister was not available when we were. We have also had duties to carry out in the House. When we have two full days of business and we have other commitments in the House and our constituency work, we do not have much flexibility left for what we are required to do during the week.
I want the matter to be resolved tonight. I feel strongly about it, as do the majority of my colleagues. I hope that the House will not cause us to stand at the Bar of the House and be judged as felons—that is what it would come to

—for not carrying out our duties properly. If the procedures of the House make much a visit difficult, hon. Members have sufficient faith in the Officers of the House and in the Chairman of Ways and Means to sort out the problem fairly speedily so that there is no undue delay in our coming to a conclusion.
In no circumstances would I have dreamt of approaching the promoters to arrange for us to make visits. I am employed on the Committee by the House. The responsibility lies with the House. I am aware of the excellent advice from the Chairman of Ways and Means, who pointed out that, when sitting in judgment, we cannot be seen to be in the pockets of the promoters of private Bills. I totally agree, and that is why we must try to resolve this matter. Please give us the opportunity to complete the work on which we have spent much time, conscientiously trying to help all concerned, so that the Bill can be brought back before the House and dealt with.

Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are very interesting. It is fairly rare for hon. Members to be appointed to that Committee. It is a wee bit ironic that it is in the nature of the House that, when dealing with such a complex matter, it actually consciously appoints hon. Members who do not know anything about it. Of course, as well as not knowing anything about it, they have no axe to grind and they have no bias. That is the good side of it.
The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to visit parts of the canal system. Is that for the purpose of seeing on the ground, or in the water, exactly how the legislation would work and what effect it would have, talking with canal users, or what? Will the hon. Gentleman give some examples?

Mr. Etherington: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I shall try to answer in reverse while the questions are still in my mind. The Committee felt that it would like to see sites that exemplified the evidence, especially when there was some contention. I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman—one of the finest principles ever expounded is that justice is blind. In many cases, those who sit in judgment know very little or nothing about a subject. For many years, experts on all sorts of subjects have made judgments, and sometimes they are not always the best, as we notice every day.
I shall refer to a matter I raised earlier. Many Bills, byelaws, amendments and statutory instruments reflect the differences between Scottish law and English law. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is well aware of those differences. The Committee felt that it should see some circumstances that were unique to Scotland. For example, if we had been able to spend a couple of hours at Paddington basin to see what we wanted, that would have been helpful. I am sure that my colleagues on the Committee will agree with me when I say that we do not want to give ourselves any extra responsibilities. My time is already curtailed somewhat. I always seem to be running round at top speed. I do not have much time to stop and think, and collect my life in many respects.
The Committee felt that visits were necessary and wanted to have a look at three specific places. We wanted to look at the Caledonian canal, which has specific local problems. We also wanted to go to Braunston lock because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the question of


houseboats is of paramount importance to this issue, and we wanted to look at certain aspects of the Grand Union canal.
Several hon. Members said that they could not understand the problem. I cannot understand it either. Throughout the sittings of the Committee, I had the impression that there was a misjudgment. There seemed to be gentle coercion to proceed with the Bill with all speed. I do not consider that I am an obstructive or awkward person, but that sort of atmosphere is not helpful. If that is a criticism of the way in which the House works, so be it. That is the way I feel. The House should hear all the details of this serious matter.
I hope that the House will give us the privilege of continuing the work that we are doing and that we can resolve the matter. As I said, unless the matter is resolved, I am afraid that I might have to stand in this fine Chamber in a different position from where I am now. I do not issue threats—that is not my way of life. But being honourable, I feel that it is only right that that should be pointed out. I know that a majority of my colleagues feel exactly the same.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to catch your eye in this debate. I shall start by expressing my disturbance that we have reached this position, because the subject has been studied in enormous depth by a large number of people. Before I go any further, I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), and the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington). We had a very cordial Committee, as I shall explain in a moment. My two Labour colleagues on the Committee have been helpful and constructive in every possible way.
As I said, I am sorry that we have reached this stage. The whole subject of the regulation—basically, that is what the Bill is all about—of the powers of British Waterways with regard to inland waterways has been studied in great depth. It was first studied by the Select Committee on the Environment in 1987, from which arose the idea of this Bill. It was deposited in the House of Lords in November 1990. Their Lordships had 11 very detailed sittings on the Bill.
As a result—the House has heard that all of them involved a barrister leading the British Waterways case, solicitors leading for the petitioners and the petitioners themselves—a number of major improvements were made to the Bill, not least of which was the provision of a moratorium for houseboat owners who had not already applied for a licence. A number of constructive changes were made to the Bill in another place, and the detailed debate was concluded in May 1991. Thereafter, there was a Third Reading and the whole subject was given yet another airing.
As happens in the normal course of events, the Bill came to this House for First Reading—there was no debate —on 13 March 1992. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) for his actions in promoting the Bill and his work for British Waterways. In his erudite speech this evening, he proved that he is immensely knowledgeable about the subject of canals and the workings of British Waterways. He referred to the Second Reading of the Bill. Thereafter, a Committee was

appointed by the House which comprised the hon. Members for Leeds, East and for Sunderland, North, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and me.
Sitting on the Committee was no mean task, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North explained. As I look round the House, I see a number of hon. Members who have been here a long time but who do not understand how the private business procedure works.
Four of us sat on the Committee for more than 50 hours, which produced more than 800 pages of transcript. The Committee had to have a quorum of three, which meant that we could not leave the room without having a detailed discussion about who would stay. Intensive work took place in the Committee. We had to concentrate every moment because we were responsible for reporting to the House at the end of the day. Unlike other Committees, we could not leave, do some work and return. We had to be there the whole time, we had to concentrate and we had to ask pertinent questions.
This subject has been debated at enormous length and in enormous detail in the Committe. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West explained, as a result of the deliberations in another place, and the deliberations in Committee and debate in this House, the number of petitioners has been whittled down to four. Of those four, one has not appeared before the Committee. We have taken detailed evidence from three of the 44 original petitioners. The Chairman of the Committee has been immensely patient with those petitioners. At all stages of the proceedings he allowed them to cross-examine the witnesses for British Waterways and its counsel. They could not possibly have wished for a more courteous Chairman. They have had every opportunity to examine the Bill in any way they wished.
We have almost come to the end of the evidence. What took place in Committee is not a secret because it is open to the public. The proceedings were published fully in Hansard and they are fully available. It is fair to say that the petitioners feel that they received a fair hearing. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Sunderland, North would agree with that.

Mr. Etherington: Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for that helpful and constructive intervention, which merely shows that I am giving a fully factual account to the House.
It is important to realise where we have got to. I believe that there will be a summary from British Waterways. The Committee will then deliberate on all the evidence and the submissions, and will hopefully come to a conclusion. I understand that we are looking at about three more days of sittings. Having had 13 sittings, we have almost come to the point where we can see the end.
I should perhaps mention the subject of the requested visit, which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North spoke about at length. As he said, the four Committee members know very little about British waterways. Certainly that is true in my case, but I am not able to speak for the other Committee members. After listening to the evidence and questions in the Committee, I do not believe that the other Committee members are particularly knowledgeable about canals.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I do not want to do my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) an injustice. He was a member of the Select Committee on the Environment when we investigated British Waterways at considerable length. The Committee produced a unanimous report, and most of the report's recommendations have been implemented. Few hon. Members can claim to be experts, because experts are people who avoid small mistakes on the road to the great fallacy. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke can be regarded as an expert.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting me straight on that point. I had forgotten that my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke was a member of the Committee which reported in such detail on the matter in 1987.
The Committee is within sight of finishing its deliberations. I watched this measure put on the Order Paper day after day. I was amazed that, after going through all that procedure and having deliberated the matter in such depth, there should have been objections. I have tried to discover from one or two people what it is that they are objecting to. I have talked to people who have objected and discovered which parts of the Bill they are objecting to or which of the petitioners' points they wish to be upheld. I can explain to them what has gone on in the Committee, and I have found that they have been satisfied. I find it very strange that we have to use up the House's valuable time deliberating the measure.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: The only objector, as I understand it, to the revival motion on 13 January was the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond), who has now left the Chamber. Like him, we are obviously anxious to know what lies behind the objections. British Waterways has written to him on several occasions without receiving a response, so we are in the dark as much as anybody else about why there should be objections to the Bill.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend clarifies the matter. I think that it is sad that we could not have gone back into Committee. After all, the whole process involved a barrister leading for British Waterways, not to mention other senior members of the board and the staff of British Waterways. I do not know what the cost to them would be, but I should not be surprised if the procedure to date had cost British Waterways more than £100,000.
British Waterways is supported by a large number of people in this country. I understand that 9 million people are associated with the inland waterways and canals of the country. They want to see the waterways properly managed and providing a better service. I pay tribute to British Waterways in that respect. It has come a long way in the past few years, as the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report makes clear. Quite honestly, however, if it has to meet this type of expense and to take this length of time to get such a Bill through the House, I would not blame it if it started to ask whether it was worth while.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I have certainly no brief to object to the cost of the procedure, and obviously my hon. Friend has made his own point. I am worried, not about the price in financial terms because one cannot put a price on democratic involvement, but about the price in terms of potential tragedy through safety measures which cannot be

addressed until the Bill is on the statute book. That is why it is absolutely vital to get to the end of the process as soon as possible, consistent with allowing people their say in a democratic society.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I totally agree, but I have not yet come to the question why the Bill is desirable. Much of the time of the management of British Waterways has been invested in the process, quite apart from the monetary aspect and the other vital issues which the Bill addresses.
The inland waterways are enjoyed by a huge number of people in this country. People generally have more leisure time, and they can enjoy the waterways in a number of ways. They may walk along the towpath with their dogs, go boating on the canals either by owning their own boat or by taking a pleasant holiday, or they can live on the canals—let us not forget that a large number of people do so.
A number of vital powers in the Bill require British Waterways to enhance its management. As I and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West have explained, British Waterways has come a long way in updating its management procedures since the Select Committee reported in 1987. Many of the report's recommendations have now been implemented. On the whole, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was complimentary to British Waterways, and particularly to its chairman, Mr. David Ingram, from whom we heard in Committee. Mr. Ingram was an impressive witness. He showed determination and he knew the business backwards, and his enthusiasm to see an improvement was clear for all to see.
I hope that Mr. Ingram's successor will enter a new era for British Waterways. I hope that when the Bill has passed all its stages he will be able to regulate the waterways with greater effect.
British Waterways obtains a grant of more than £40 million a year from the Department of the Environment. It is a large organisation, covering over 2,000 miles of waterways up and down the country. The Bill applies to England, Wales and Scotland. What does the Bill do? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West has stressed, it deals with safety and the regulation of the waterways. Basically it gives British Waterways powers which all other statutory undertakers have had for years.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked why British Waterways needs powers to enter private land. In the canals there are hundreds of thousands of tonnes of water. If there were a breach in a canal and there were dwellings downstream, the result could be catastrophic. The last thing an area manager of British Waterways will want to do in those circumstances is to have to find an owner who may be away on holiday. If the manager cannot get the relevant powers, emergency powers are needed to deal with such an incident.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: It is a question not simply of property, but of life and limb. I recently had the opportunity to go along the Llangollen canal. One section there had broken away, sending water down to the valley below which swept away the railway line. My hon. Friend can imagine in such circumstances what would happen if there was a crowded train, perhaps in a different part of the country. Such a tragedy could occur if powers to intervene were not available when the danger became apparent.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Committee was shown photographs of one or two instances where there had been breaches of canals.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am a little hesitant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman because I realise that, as he sat on the Committee, he has every right to pass information to the House. However, as I understand it, members of the Committee are not supposed to take part in the debates, certainly on Second Reading, or express their views until consideration of the Bill has been completed.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is in danger of straying into expressing his views on the Bill before the Committee has reported. It would be unfortunate if that happened and he had to be discharged from the Committee —he may want to escape from the Committee, I do not know—and someone else had to be appointed at this stage. What is the position on a carry-over motion about someone who is on the Committee, in a judicial role, commenting before the Committee has completed its consideration?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is a matter for the hon. Member who has the floor. It will be a different Committee.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Thank you for that advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am also grateful for the stricture placed on me by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. I have not expressed any opinion on the clauses of the Bill. I have merely reported factually the case that has already been well made by the British Waterways Board. It is important that the House has a flavour of what the Bill contains and hears about a small amount of the evidence that was given in Committee. Otherwise, how can the House decide whether to vote for the revival motion this evening?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West has made clear, it is in the interests of British Waterways and the petitioners that the democratic process of the Committee should be allowed to proceed to a conclusion. I am not saying what that conclusion will be. It is important that democracy should prevail.
Part II of the Bill deals with powers that are already granted to every other statutory undertaker. We have studied at length in the Committee how the powers have been granted to other undertakers. I know that there are doubts among certain of the petitioners about the powers given to British Waterways. We have had a large amount of evidence from British Waterways to the effect that the powers are necessary.
Part III of the Bill is particularly important. I suppose that it has given rise to more anxieties among petitioners than any other part of the Bill. It deals with the regulation and management of the inland waterways and canals of Britain. It gives powers to the British Waterways Board to license the two major types of boater on the canals—houseboat owners and pleasure boat owners.
Houseboat owners in particular are anxious about what will be their future on the waterways after the Bill is enacted. The Committee has spent a great deal of time considering their interests. It is fair to say that every aspect has been considered in detail. I believe that the petitioners would accept that they have been given a fair hearing.
The crux of the matter is where houseboat owners will moor their boats. You will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is necessary to make proper provision for houseboat owners who live a major part of their life on the

canal. They have to comply with the various health and safety regulations and planning regulations. It is right that they should have to do so and that their safety should be ensured by British Waterways. It is right that they should not obstruct the waterways and that they should inhabit the waterways in a safe manner.
I see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are looking to see whether I am outside the terms of the debate. I should be grateful—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman would be mistaken if he thought that.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no doubt that you will advise me if I stray outside the terms of the motion.
As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said, although we did not come to the Committee with much prior knowledge of waterways, we shall leave it with a great deal of knowledge. We may not have become experts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West said, but we have certainly acquired a lot of knowledge.
Part III is the critical part of the Bill and it causes most anxiety among petitioners. It deals with the business of moorings. As you can imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in certain areas such as Islington and London there is enormous pressure on the waterways and it is absolutely necessary for British Waterways to regulate the moorings and to license boat owners so that the waterways can be run efficiently and safely.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West said, part IV of the Bill imposes environmental duties on British Waterways—the same type of duties that are imposed on every other statutory undertaker. They are enshrined in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and are regulated by the various environmental bodies.
That is an important provision, because we want to make sure that the environment on the waterways is congenial and pleasant for those who want to use the waterways in one or other of the ways that I have described. I stress that the waterways are an amenity for every person in Britain. I cannnot stress that too much. The waterways are an integral part of the great historical heritage of Britain. It is vital that they are regulated in the best possible way in the interests of all who are associated with the waterways.
Part IV of the Bill deals with Scotland. We heard a lot of evidence from one petitioner who deals with Scotland —Lord Burton. I should perhaps explain what gave rise to the need for the visit about which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North spoke so eloquently and at such length.
In Scotland, the British Waterways Board needs different powers. There have been problems because Scottish law on how British Waterways can enter land and what notices it has to serve on landowners before it enters that land is different from that in England and Wales. There have been several difficulties in the past years. Those difficulties are a good example of how the Bill will help British Waterways to deal with landowners and occupiers in Scotland. It will also help the landowners and occupiers because it will clarify exactly the powers of British Waterways. It clarifies them for that part of the Caledonian canal and the four lochs on the canal that are excluded under the Bill.
Let me explain what gave rise to a request for the visit. The Committee heard some disturbing evidence about what had gone on in the past. It is all very well to hear evidence, but, when we and British Waterways had been to so much trouble, it seemed reasonable that, if members of the Committee wanted to make a visit and ascertain for themselves at first hand what was involved, they should do so. There is a great deal of difference between looking oneself at first hand and hearing evidence.
When one considers the time and trouble that had been taken, it was not an unreasonable request to visit a canal in London, a marina in the midlands—to see the problem of dealing with moorings in a private marina—and the Caledonian canal in Scotland to see the problems in relation to Scottish law, especially as so much evidence was given on Scotland. From the evidence that we heard, it appeared to the Committee that the point was particularly poignant for that petitioner.
We have considered the issues in great detail. It is a thoroughly worthwhile Bill, which I commend to the House. The Committee clearly will have to reach a conclusion, and I do not know what it will be, but I urge hon. Members to vote for the revival motion. It is essential that, as we have considered the issues in such detail and depth, the democratic process should be allowed to proceed to a conclusion so that we can grant the Bill a Third Reading and it can then receive Royal Assent. British Waterways can then get on with the task of improving the already excellent job that it does in managing the 2,000 miles of inland waterways and canals.

Sir Russell Johnston: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on the diligence with which he has pursued the legislation. I also congratulate the hon. Members who have given their time and energy to serve on the Committee that examined the Bill. We have, indeed, just heard from two of them. They gave us an interesting glimpse into a not terribly well-known aspect of the House's activities. As has been made clear, they carried out their duties most thoroughly and enabled people who had objections to the Bill to air them fully. I shall be brief, because I do not want to detain the House too long.
The request to be able to make visits—to visualise the law, as it were—sounds perfectly reasonable. It does not seem excessive to demand to visit three areas where there have been special problems. I do not entirely understand the difficulties, but I suspect that there are some regulations that preclude such visits. This might be a good opportunity for the usual channels to display their capacity to allow common sense to flow back and forth, even if that is not the norm at the moment. I should have thought that the case for such visits was strong.
The hon. Members for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for Hertfordshire, West fretted about the delay caused by people objecting. I was one of the people who objected, although, as the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West said, I did not do so on 13 January. Those of us who have objected have done so largely to put pressure on the British Waterways Board. That is not

unreasonable, and it is not often that we in the House have the opportunity to put pressure on anyone. I am not quite prepared to let British Waterways off the hook.
The procedure has been drawn out because there was a failure by the board, especially at the beginning, to consult effectively. People felt that certain things were being imposed on them. That was perhaps especially true in Scotland although Lord Burton, who was a constituent of mine, is not someone on whom anything can be easily imposed—quite the contrary. Nevertheless, some people felt that Scotland hardly needed to be covered in the Bill because Scotland does not have a true inland waterways system. We have "through" waterways; the waterways are not confined but are routes to the sea.
It seems that whenever I speak about this subject, including the occasions when I speak to Lord Burton—although it is sometimes he who speaks to me—I find that some confusion remains about clause 39 which was added following the objections raised by the Highland regional council. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that the Bill will not extend to the lochs —Loch Lochy, Loch Oich, Loch Ness and Loch Dochfour —but that the British Waterways Board does have powers in respect of passage through the lochs and that those powers are derived not from the Bill but from the Transport Act 1962. Therefore, even without the addition of clause 39, the Bill had no effect on the lochs, although the clause makes that clear beyond peraventure, as lawyers are wont to say. I hope that I am right; if I am not, perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to correct me.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): We are discussing a revival motion for a private Bill and I am not conducting the Bill through the House. In fairness, the hon. Gentleman's request should therefore be directed to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) who is its sponsor and is responsible for its conduct. I am sure that, in due course, my hon. Friend will be able to answer the hon. Gentleman's question.

Sir Russell Johnston: With respect, I thought that, although the Minister is not conducting the Bill, he is here to be a fount of information, knowledge and guidance to help us in our travail.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am not going to deal with the hon. Gentleman's legal point, but I said that the four lochs were excluded from the terms of the Bill. However, the Committee heard a great deal of evidence to the effect that it was the locks that were causing problems.

Sir Russell Johnston: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall not pursue that issue as I do not wish to detain the House.
I agree that the British Waterways Board has learnt from the experience of dealing with the Bill and that the process has had a considerable effect on the board. I willingly associate myself with the tribute paid by the hon. Members for Hertfordshire, West and for Cirencester and Tewkesbury to Sir David Inman, who was until recently the chairman, and to Jeremy Duffy, who is the secretary, both of whom have gone out of their way to be helpful, to hear and discuss my constituents' objections.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: It might be convenient if I confirm at this stage that the hon. Gentleman's


understanding was correct. The board's licensing powers stem from the Transport Act 1962 and the Bill confers no additional powers. I hope that that is helpful.

Sir Russell Johnston: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
The board has learnt that it needs to consult regularly and to have devolved and responsible management which is accessible to users and can make decisions without continually referring to some distant place. It has learnt from the experience of going through this long and complicated legislation.
A group of my constituents raised legal arguments about who owns what at Gairlochy at one end of the Caledonian canal, but I am satisfied that a procedure has been found that can establish the veracity or otherwise of the claims being made. I am confident that the difficulties will be resolved satisfactorily.
Reference has been made to the board's stronger commercial outlook. I do not argue that such an outlook is not necessary but it is a little ironic that a publicly owned enterprise, such as the British Waterways Board, may be compelled by law to behave in a harder, more rigorous and, perhaps, more profiteering way than a private landlord, who has the discretion to be generous if he wishes. It is rather contradictory and I do not know what can be done about it, but there is no doubt that it contributed to the general unease that followed the introduction of the Bill.
Much of the unease was related to the fear that the Bill might ultimately result in perhaps expensive regulation and that the cost of rents or licenses would increase considerably. It is in the scope and powers of British Waterways to act in a reasonable fashion in regard to those questions and that is something it is aware of, and I am sure that it will do so.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If the right people are on the board.

Sir Russell Johnston: Yes, it is all a question of the right people, as the hon. Gentleman perspicaciously remarks. I think that he would probably define himself as one of them. [Laughter.]
I have expressed my concerns and will not delay the House much longer. It is common cause among us that the system should develop and prosper and above all that it be safe and, as the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said, agreeable to the users.

Sir Anthony Durant: I rise to, speak on the Bill as the chairman of the parliamentary waterways group. One function of the Bill has been to revive that group, because all the petitioners hurriedly came to see us when we had meetings in Committee Rooms and other parts of the House, because they were concerned about the Bill in its early stages. We had some lively and interesting meetings of the group, which is not always that active. I have had some interesting times as chairman of the parliamentary waterways group.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) in the motion that the Bill should proceed. I wish to speak on behalf of two bodies to reassure the House that those bodies that had reservations have now withdrawn them.
The British Marine Industries Federation, a trade association representing more than 1,100 firms in the

recreational boat industry, was initially concerned by several aspects of the Bill, but, after constructive discussions, British Waterways agreed to propose amendments to the Bill and provide various assurances to the BMIF and other bodies representing navigational interests.
As a result, the BMIF withdrew its petition against the Bill, as did the Royal Yachting Association, the Inland Waterways Association, which I wish to mention in a moment, and other groups representing waterways users. The BMW's view, which is shared by many other navigational interests, is that the enactment of the Bill, with the amendments and subject to assurances, would be positively beneficial to waterway users.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West has said, some of the matters that caused concern included the rights of those in houseboats, with which the parliamentary group had meetings.
The Inland Waterways Association negotiated with British Waterways for many months. The association consulted its members, as it represents all the people who use the waterways, and it supported three items of the Bill in principle: emergency powers of entry, of which we have heard discussion, standards of construction and insurance, and houseboat regulation.
The safety aspect, which has been mentioned, is absolutely vital. I have a boat in my constituency on the River Thames. I was down in the hold doing a bit of work when there was a most enormous explosion and a tremendous bang shook all the boats around. I rushed out from my boat and on to the jetty to see that a boat had blown up, it had flames coming from it and people had been flung into the water. It was a very dangerous incident. The boat had broken down in navigating the Thames, had been towed in by a narrow boat, had tried to come alongside, the rope that had been thrown had been missed and the man who held the boat turned the engine and there was an explosion because the hold was full of petrol fumes. Luckily, because there was free access, the fire brigade was able to arrive quickly, the ambulance was there in no time and the owners of the marina were on the spot to help.
It was a nasty incident and a lot of the people who were travelling in the boat were badly burnt. We managed to get them out of the water and the fire was put out as the boat sank. There were no fatalities. There was a little dog on board, but he headed straight for the shore of his own initiative and got away as fast as he could. That incident illustrates the need in a leisure pursuit which has dangerous elements for access enabling people to get to the waterway as quickly as possible.
One of the reasons why problems have arisen with British Waterways is that when the original Acts were made, creating waterways was a new departure. It occurred before railways existed and everybody's interest had to be safeguarded. An original waterways Bill of 1793 states:
Canal may be made through Mrs. Seare's Pleasure Grounds under certain Restrictions. No lock to be erected within in a Mile of Mrs. Seare's at Bulboume without her consent. No Injury to be done to the Mills of the Honourable Mrs. Leigh.
All such instructions used to enter the Acts on an enormous scale, which restricted the owners of the canal in what they could do and their access to it. British Waterways is trying to regularise that position so that it can get access to the waterways for safety when boats get into difficulty and when banks burst—a point made by other hon. Members.
The association has a plain commitment from British Waterways on a number of other points in the Bill, which are on the record. The association also considered other aspects of concern, such as powers to prevent mooring, to refuse a boat a licence because its moorings are not suitable —which was dealt with—and powers to dispose of property and subsidiaries which could lead to loss of heritage and continuity in the waterways system, which were considered and agreed. Powers to limit opening of locks on the River Severn and powers to permit the association of the boats standards appeal panel were also examined.
The number of boat users on the system is growing at a great pace. It is a great leisure pursuit, which is usually enjoyed by families who go out for weekends or for the day, often going up and down the same stretch and getting great pleasure from it. It may seem boring to other people. When I come out of my marina, I have the opportunity to turn left or right. I have a choice, but that is the only choice I get on one beautiful stretch of the River Thames. I enjoy it, I relax and there are thousands of people who do the same every weekend.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and I am delighted that he is contributing to the debate. Would he advise the House of the view of the people who have constructed and operate marinas that feed in to our inland waterways system, because, in the past, they have expressed criticism that they have been expected to make excessive contributions to British Waterways?

Sir Anthony Durant: My hon. Friend is correct. There were discussions of access to the navigation from marinas, but that has now been dealt with satisfactorily and most of those who run marinas are well satisfied that they get a reasonable deal from British Waterways. I believe that that is working perfectly satisfactorily. I have no recent evidence that it has caused any difficulty. My hon. Friend is right to say that, for a period, those who run marinas were greatly concerned about access to the waterway, but I think that that matter has now been satisfactorily settled.
The British Marine Industries Federation, the Inland Waterways Association and many houseboat owners now feel that the Bill should proceed. There will be opportunities to have another look at the Bill in Committee and when it comes back to the House. I am sure that, if we pass the motion, we can proceed and give the British Waterways Board, which has battled with the Bill for a long time at considerable cost and difficulty to itself, the opportunity to achieve a Bill that will safeguard and regularise the waterways and at least improve them for the benefit of those who use them. I support the motion.

9 pm

Mr. George Howarth: I shall be brief, as I am aware that two or possibly three of my hon. Friends wish to contribute to the debate. I shall make two quick points and then advise the House of the official Opposition's position.
It is fairly evident from the debate so far that at the beginning of this process the British Waterways Board would have been well advised perhaps to hold more vigorous consultations before trying to promote the Bill.

One of the petitioners against the Bill, Janice Christianson of Helensborough in Scotland, made that very point in her petition. She states:
The preamble of the Bill states at part 3 'It is expedient that further provisions should be made for the regulation and management by the Board of the Inland Waterways owned or managed by them'. Your Petitioner requests that this be amended by adding 'on behalf of the people of Great Britain.' The preamble of the Bill continues 'and that certain statutory provisions relating to the Board or their undertaking should be amended or repealed.' Your Petitioner requests that the words 'after due consultation with concerned and interested parties' be added.
That might have been a better way to proceed and perhaps would have saved time and prevented many of the problems that have cropped up, but that is with the benefit of hindsight.
I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington). I am mindful of the fact that the Committee sat for 50 hours and, indeed, I tried to go through the 800 pages or so of evidence that it produced, although I do not claim to have done so exhaustively. I am persuaded also by the sponsor of the Bill that it would not be proper at this stage for the Opposition to oppose the Bill. My recommendation is that we should not oppose the revival motion. That is not an official position and I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will take a contrary view, as they are free to do. At this point, I just want to make it clear that I do not recommend that my hon. Friends oppose the motion, although they are free to do so if they wish.

Mr. Barry Field: Hon. Members may wonder why, representing the Isle of Wight, I should speak in the debate this evening.
Once, I chartered a small vessel on the River Thames with my brother and father to go and watch the proceedings at Henley. I was was unused to piloting a craft without a compass. When we left the marina, we had rather a heated debate whether to turn left or right. From the Isle of Wight that is quite simple, because one reaches either Holland or America. We could not decide, but eventually we turned left and came to an idyllic lock with cows munching the grass nearby. We went into the lock, and coming down in the opposite direction was a delightful chap in a punt with a pretty young lady who carried a parasol. We bade him good morning. He asked where we were going, and when we said, "Henley," he said, "So am I and I am going in the opposite direction." We realised that we were going in the wrong direction so we turned around, went back and had a jolly time.
The other reason why I am taking part in the debate is that, every month, somebody from the Inland Waterways Association sends me Waterways. I do not know whether he thinks that the Solent has been redesignated or that it is narrower than it is, but I always read its news with great interest. In a previous incarnation, I was in the Territorial Army. It had a strong connection with inland water transport. In the last war, the Royal Engineers had one of the largest units under command in the whole of the British Army and that was the inland water transport group. I had the good fortune to join it, sadly just after it ceased to be the Royal Engineers and became the Royal Corps of Transport—sadly, no more. Unusually for the British Army, I was commissioned into my own troop.
As a result of that, I got the territorial decoration, of which I am very proud. I also became a Thames lighterman and waterman, and became a member of the Thames Watermen and Lightermen Company, which I also enjoy, because it took not one but two Acts of Parliament to subdue them, as they were such an unruly lot.
I am commodore of the House of Commons yacht club. Something of an earthquake was caused when it discovered that I had a yacht. That is almost against the rules of the club and it almost had to change them just for me. I think that we all agree that, although in aquatic terms the club house is slightly underused, it is certainly the best yacht club in the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) referrred to the British Marine Industries Federation and the excellent work that it and the Royal Yachting Association have done in shaping the Bill.
I suppose that the real reason why I am speaking in the debate is that my claim to fame is that I hold the record, I believe, in Parliament for chairing the highest number of Committee on private Bills. I shall make that claim and, as always in this place, leave it to others to try to knock me off my pinnacle. I have volunteered on many occasions to chair Committees and am rather sad that, in this Parliament, the tradition whereby a Member who volunteers to chair a Committee can do so out of turn with the co-operation of the Opposition seems to have gone out of the window.
I volunteered to chair the Committee on the Bill but, as often happens, it fell to the Opposition to appoint a chairman on that occasion. So far, the turn and turn about rule has continued throughout this Parliament. That is sad because, as we know, Committees on private Bills are fairly onerous things to chair and to be involved in and we always thought that one volunteer was worth 10 pressed men. I am pleased to say that I chaired the Committee on the first private Bill of this Parliament that came before us, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) was on it, as was the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington). I am pleased to be able to tell the House that they said the most delightful things about my chairmanship of it.
Some hon. Members may remember—

Sir Anthony Durant: I am following closely my hon. Friend's comments about presiding over Committees on private Bills. Is there another private Bill on the horizon for which he is making a bid?

Mr. Field: It is funny that my hon. Friend should say that, because I have already put in a bid for the Poole Ferry Bill, which is before the House, but whether it will fall to our turn remains to be seen.
The danger of volunteering is that one ends up with one of those horrid Bills that sits for ever and that one does not get the Bill that one hoped for. Time will tell. Hon. Members may remember—I know that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) will remember the period well, because, like me, he takes an interest in that murky area of the Commons and its procedures—the Bill to amend the Isle of Wight Act which was introduced by my illustrious predecessor, Mark Woodnutt—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is all very interesting, but I have been trying for the past few seconds

to ascertain what it has to do with the debate. It will be helpful to the debate if the hon. Gentleman would get back to the debate on the revival motion.

Mr. Field: I was just coming to that point. The purpose of the Isle of Wight (Amendment) Bill was to control pop festivals on the island and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish was blocking private Bills, as was his prerogative. At that time, The Times accused me of wrecking the Paddington-Heathrow Link Bill. It subsequently published an apology, because that was quite unfair.
As a result of the arrangement that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish was making at the time, I did eventually wreck every single Bill that came before the House. I did that because Opposition Members would not pass the amendment to the Isle of Wight Act. That matter relates to the revival motion, because, as a result of my action, I received an amazing quantity of correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. I am sure that you would agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are here to debate not the contents of the Bill but the revival motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is my view.

Mr. Field: I received correspondence from fellow Conservative Members the like of which the Opposition could hardly imagine. I was threatened with being hanged, drawn and quartered, because I was putting at risk Bills connected with the Star and Garter home, redundant lighthouses and even a delightful little estate somewhere—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would welcome it if the hon. Gentleman now spoke about the British Waterways Bill.

Mr. Field: My point is that I found that hon. Members did not know anything about the way in which private legislation is dealt with. They were quite unaware that there is what is colloquially known as a Lazarus motion, or, as it appears on the Order Paper, a revival motion. It is given that colloquial term because it does exactly what that name implies—it brings a Bill back from the dead.
When a new Parliament is opened with the Gracious Speech, the private Bill procedure must fall. There is no mechanism to initiate that procedure in the new Parliament unless it is subject to the revival motion. Private Bills cost the promoters, and sometimes the petitioners, a great deal of money.

Mr. Bennett: How often does it happen that promoters are so slow to negotiate with the objectors that we have more than one revival motion, which may carry a Bill not just from one Session to the next but, as in one case, through three Sessions?

Mr. Field: I had intended to mention that fact, with your patience and forbearance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It is clear from the correspondence that I have received that hon. Members were unaware of the revival motion. The Bills with which they were involved were connected with their constituencies. I remember one that related to a town in the Medway area and involved a bridge over a river. Those hon. Members were all unaware, however, that it was possible to table revival motions to bring all the Bills back. They did not know that they did not have to start the whole process all over again. It is not possible to


do that, however, when a general election intervenes and Parliament is dissolved; then, sadly, as I know to my cost, Bills fall and the process must start all over again.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish asked how many times a Bill can be and has been revived. The answer lies in part with Lord Howe, who, when Leader of the House, did away with a large proportion of Back Benchers' rights when he piloted the Transport and Works Bill through the House.

Mr. Bennett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House. The Bill before us proves that a Bill can be revived after a general election, because it was originally introduced in 1990. We have, of course, had a general election since then.

Mr. Field: I stand corrected. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will find, however, that the Bill had not progressed far before the general election and that its reintroduction in the new Parliament was not prejudiced. If it had been considered in Committee and then fell because of the general election, its legislative process would have had to start all over again. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to make that absolutely clear.
The Transport and Works Act 1992 impinges on the revival motion, because it took away a vast chunk of the private Bill procedure from the House. I told Sir Geoffrey Howe that his belief that such Bills should, in future, be subject to a public inquiry as opposed to the private Bill procedure was untenable. Anyone familiar with public inquiries will know that they are not a way of resolving expeditiously the many problems encompassed by the British Waterways Bill. Such a Bill is an expeditious, if expensive, way of sorting out many knotty legal problems that cannot be solved by the courts, and of establishing ownership rights.
The reason that that procedure was denied to the House was that there was once a whole raft of private Bills, and some of them had dragged on—such as the Felixstowe Docks and Harbour Bill, which detained the House late at night. I told the Leader of the House at the time that there would be fewer such Bills in future because there had been a plethora of them as the economy improved—as had happened in Victorian Parliaments—but that if we bided our time, their numbers would fall. The Private Bill Office says that they have. The situation would have resolved itself, and right hon. and hon. Members would not have found themselves so inconvenienced.
It is sad that a huge tranche of rights was taken from Back Benchers. Having served as Chairman during the passage of private Bills, I know that they provide the only opportunity for a Member of Parliament to make a decision that will affect the lives of the citizens of this nation.

Sir Anthony Durant: I remind my hon. Friend that the Select Committee that examined the private Bill procedure —in which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) had some involvement—recommended that it be changed. That is why the then Leader of the House took the matter up.

Mr. Field: My hon. Friend is right, but modernization of the procedure was needed, not its almost total abolition.
You rightly reprimanded me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for straying from the revival motion. I want to be particularly

helpful because I know of a particular problem that arose in visiting various sites. I will tell the House of my experience when I chaired the Committee considering a Bill concerning Tees and Hartlepool. Such legislation falls into two categories—works Bills, which the Transport and Works Act 1992 abolished, and powers Bills or measures. The British Waterways Bill is a powers Bill.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend deploys an extremely interesting argument, but a number of us on this side of the House, and probably the House as a whole, seek to ascertain whether he supports the revival motion. I am listening to his arguments with care as a member of both the Standing Orders Committee—which has some interest in the matter—and the Chairmen's Panel. I respect my hon. Friend for making it clear that the establishment reduced the powers and authority of the House. However, I am interested to know whether or not my hon. Friend favours the Bill's revival, because that is the purpose of this debate.

Mr. Field: My hon. Friend will have to maintain his keen anticipation a moment longer.
I want to tell the House about my experience in respect of visits, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) referred.
Two members of the Committee asked whether we could visit. We were advised by the Clerk in the Private Bill Office that, because this was a powers Bill, not a works Bill, that was not possible—there was no tradition of, or authority for, going on such visits—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is all very interesting, but it does not take us far towards finding out whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Bill should be revived.

Mr. Field: You have been very patient with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, during my tour of private Bill legislation. You have a reputation for patience, and it does you great credit.
I was going on to say that a slight frisson was felt by the Committee because of those visits. Had it not been for that, the Bill might already have been out of Committee and this motion would not have been necessary. I had intended to read the motion out to the House, but I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule that unnecessary—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Necessary or not, the fact is that the motion is before the House, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to get back to it.

Mr. Field: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The fact remains that we have a revival motion owing to the problems that occurred in the Committee. The solution that we found showed that it was quite possible for hon. Members to make visits while considering a powers Bill. So that was done, eventually the hon. Members concerned rejoined the Committee, and the Bill went on its way.
I share these thoughts with the House because this aspect of our procedures is shrouded in cobwebs—not everyone understands these things. I hope to have added to the sum of human knowledge this evening by what I have had to say. Curiously, however, the Bill in question was suddenly dropped, and the trust ports legislation was taken up by the Government and became an Act.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has asked me whether I am in favour of the motion: I most certainly am. It is a worthwhile Bill. As my


hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) says, our inland waterways give great pleasure to many thousands of people. As old Ratty said in "The Wind in the Willows", there is nothing—but nothing—like messing about in boats.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Donton and Reddish): I have a somewhat ambiguous view of this motion, because it seems to me that the promoters of the Bill have not piloted it through the House efficiently. I spoke to them back in 1991 and pointed out that some of my constituents were unhappy about the powers contained in the legislation. I advised them strongly to hold rapid negotiations with the people who were objecting to the Bill, suggesting that if they did not, the danger was that as the Bill proceeded through the House it would get caught up in all sorts of other problems.
Interestingly, because the promoters did not enter into those negotiations at an early stage, they have run into many difficulties during the passage of the Bill. One other hon. Member and I have been objecting to this motion for some weeks now. Last week we were persuaded not to object but, of course, the Bill has now run into other problems. That is the reason for the debate. People who promote such Bills should start by trying to negotiate objections out of the way. That is the message that the debate should send to such people.

Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend makes an important point. If a private Bill is supported by the Government they will obviously do everything in their power to push it through. The arrogance of Conservative Members who promote Bills shows that they are not interested in democracy. They have shoved every private Bill through. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that it is important to speak to people who will be affected by such Bills so that the provisions can be altered before they come to the Hosue. Conservatives should bear that in mind before they start preaching about democracy.

Mr. Bennett: I accept my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I sympathise with the general point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), but I was rather shocked by the intervention of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond). In many ways the board has done a great deal to try to find out people's worries. I asked about the position of the hon. Member for Don Valley and I was told:
He did not respond to correspondence from the Agents for the Bill in both 1992 and 1993 seeking a meeting to discuss his concerns and has at no time been in any other firm communications with the promoters… No record can be found, either at Headquarters or Regional office levels, of correspondence from Mr. Redmond with complaints or criticism of the way in which those waterways are managed by the Board.
I am still baffled as to what the hon. Gentleman's objections are. It is obvious that he is not taking up the consultation opportunities that are available to him.

Mr. Bennett: I do not want to go along that path because I know that some of my hon. Friends want to take part in the debate and I should like to make some substantive comments.
As I have said, anyone considering the promotion of a private Bill should start negotiations at the earliest possible stage and not wait until the Bill has been delayed in the House. I hope that this is the last debate on this matter and

that it will be possible for the Committee, if it resumes, to come to a speedy conclusion. I hope that it will amend the Bill to meet the criticisms of the remaining objectors, so that, when it emerges from Committee, everybody will be satisfied on Report and Third Reading.
I would be unhappy if I had to table amendments and take up more time. Many of my constituents feel that it would be more appropriate for the House to debate matters such as the Child Support Agency or Yugoslavia than to engage in another debate on inland waterwar. The board should have met objectors at an early stage to thrash out amendments to meet their concerns.
It is clear that the board has moved so slowly in this matter that it has created a chain reaction among people who are interested in boating. One or two still write expressing concern about difficulties in the Bill that were resolved six months ago or more. I have a funny postbag at the moment because some people write about current worries while others express concern about issues that have been resolved. I make a plea that people should get such issues out of the way at the earliest stage.
One specific issue concerns my constituents on part of the Ashton canal. The Wooden Canal Boat Trust has done important work trying to preserve the old wooden canal boats. Those boats have an interesting tradition. One of the best remaining folk crafts in Britain is preserved in the boats, in terms of the carving and traditional painting of the barges. They are interesting craft. I am not certain where they originate, but there is a great deal of artistry in the designs on those old wooden boats, and it is important that they are preserved.
Back in April, the board eventually decided that it would have to meet the objections of one of the petitioners on behalf of the Wooden Canal Boat Trust and agreed to set up a new body to work out a mechanism by which any old canal barges or parts of barges which were found sunk on the canals and had any prospect of being re-used, either in whole or in part, could be notified.
The procedure was supposed to have been set up, but I understand that six months later at least two old barges have been broken up. One was because the trust did not act, although it had been told about it in time, and the other because the Inland Waterways Board acted precipitously in dredging or some other activity which resulted in the boat becoming beyond repair.
I had hoped that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) would give an undertaking on behalf of the board that the negotiating machinery and consultation process would ensure that what remains of those historic boats would be preserved in future and that there would be all speed in getting the process into operation.
My second point concerns people with houseboats on the canals and the problems that exist, particularly for people on low incomes. There is a substantial difference between people in the south of England, who generally have a reasonable income, and people who live on canals in the north and are on extremely low incomes. They enjoy owning boats and travelling around the canals more slowly than people having a fortnight's holiday and wanting to travel a substantial distance.
Those people like to travel for a few months around the canal network and then stop and find employment for a few months. They feel under pressure because of the sensible concerns about safety. I hope that when the Committee considers the issue we will be assured that people on low incomes will not be penalised if they do not have


permanent moorings, and that if they progress around the canal system and do not need a permanent mooring they will not be in difficulty.
There is also the question of insurance. I understand all the arguments for safety and that the boats have to meet certain standards. I understand why people are reluctant to insure them if they do not reach those standards, but I have heard about the problems caused by having to take a boat out of the water to get an insurance certificate. That can involve considerable costs.
Although I agree with the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) that it is important that the boats are safe, there is a difference between being safe and being modern. It is important that the legislation contains measures to ensure that the promoters do not demand high standards which would be desirable, but difficult for people on low incomes to achieve.

Mr. Barry Field: How might the hon. Gentleman resolve that position with one of requiring small craft not to pollute the canals and to meet the most modern standards in terms of drip trays for carburettors and engines and in respect of human waste and sinks?

Mr. Bennett: The people who are concerned about that would claim that their boats are perfectly capable of meeting those requirements. I realise that there is a difficult balance between what it is reasonable for British Waterways to propose and what is reasonable for people on low incomes to achieve. It would be very unfortunate if many of the old traditional craft were to be forced off our waterways.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman and I share several waterways, not least the Cheshire ring and other canals in the north-west, and I respect the stand that he has taken on this matter. When deciding whether to support the revival motion, is it not important that the board should establish a balance between tradition and commercialism? I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that too often commercialism seems to take precedence over tradition. Tradition on our waterways is very important indeed.

Mr. Bennett: That is a very important point, and we must get the balance right. I understand that the board has agreed that there should be a consultative conference some time in March to try to thrash out some of those issues. Why did it not hold that consultative conference back in 1990, instead of waiting until the very end of the process?
As many of my hon. Friends wish to make contributions, I will not delay the House further at this stage.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): It may be convenient for the House if I intervene at this stage on the technical motion tabled by the Chairman of Ways and Means. I do not intend to speak for long, as I am conscious that other hon. Members may wish to intervene.
On Second Reading, I said that the Government have no objections to the proposals of British Waterways, which include important measures relating to the board's powers and duties. Since the House gave the Bill a Second

Reading, it has been under detailed consideration in the Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie). Two members of that Committee told us this evening of the care and diligence that they have taken in considering the Bill. The House owes the Committee a debt of gratitude for its careful work.
I hope that the House will believe that it is right that the Committee should be allowed to complete its work on the private Bill so that the House can reach a decision based on the Bill's merits. The House should also be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) who has steered the Bill through with considerable care.
The Bill has provoked and promoted considerable interest throughout the country. From representations that I have received, I am aware of the considerable concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West has devoted a considerable amount of time, energy and effort to the Bill and that is very much to the credit of the House as a whole.
As you have made clear, on several occasions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not for us tonight to consider the detailed provisions of the Bill. As I have said, and as the House knows, that is a matter for the Committee. On Second Reading last May, I welcomed the opportunity for a debate on Britain's waterways heritage. We have had something of a debate on that this evening although, by definition, as this is a technical motion, it has been more of a technical debate.
In many ways, the Bill is timely. It has coincided with the bicentenary of the canal network taking a grip in this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) said, canal mania first gripped the country in 1793. In a very short space of time, Parliament passed no fewer than 24 enabling Acts for new canals. One wonders what the parliamentary timetable at that time must have been like, particularly as there is detailed reference to various ladies' pleasure gardens.
It has also been appropriate that the Bill has not only been part of the bicentenary celebrations, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West said, has had the beneficial impact of reviving in the House an interest in waterways and canals. It has been particularly good news that we have seen the revival of the parliamentary waterways group under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West.
I hope that the Committee will be able to finish its work on the Bill. I hope also that the debate has prompted continuing interest in waterways and canals. There are about 2,000 miles of waterways in Britain. They are a great part of our heritage. The Government invest nearly £50 million a year through grant in aid, and other sums are also invested in the canal network. I hope that we can maximise the contribution that the canal network can make to our nation. I hope that interest in canals will continue.

Mr. John Greenway: I apologise for not having been able to be present throughout the debate, but I had other duties in the House to attend to.
I share my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for the many hundreds of miles of waterways. He will be aware of great concern about the Ouse north of York, in my constituency, and all the waterways to the north of Linton lock, which is in serious disrepair. Unless it is taken over by British Waterways, 50 or 60 miles of canals will effectively not be connected to the rest of the waterway network. I should


like my hon. Friend's assurance that, if the motion is agreed, the Government will seriously consider British Waterways having the resources to take responsibility for that lock.

Mr. Baldry: In fairness to other hon. Members who wish to speak, whether or not that stretch of water is subject to the British Waterways Board is a matter for statute. The board has a clear statutory definition of which stretches of canals and other waterways it is responsible for and which are remainder waterways. I will certainly check my hon. Friend's point and write to him on it.

Mr. Thomas Graham: The House has just heard an intervention by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who has just walked into the Chamber, whereas other folk have been waiting all night to speak.
As a Scottish Member of Parliament, I represent a part of the River Clyde which is well used by the boating fraternity—yachting, the lot. Last week, I visited the Earl's Court boat show and I was delighted to see a strong contingent of Scottish boats at that exhibition. I have a genuine interest in the matter. I welcome the developments, albeit very late, that are taking place on our canals. However, I oppose the Bill because we should start afresh. I feel great anxiety when I see how the Government are carrying on in respect of other matters.
I also regard the commercial aspect as very frightening. Will people have the right to walk along river banks? Will the environment be improved? Will there be walkers' rights? Will there be sewerage systems for boats so that people will not throw crap into canals? I want to ensure that such services are provided along waterways. I am not sure whether we are getting assurances. I have not just barged into this debate; I have sat in the Chamber all night. I am not sailing by the skin of my teeth. We must have assurances from British Waterways about the environment.
I was fortunate the other week to watch the Sky Television Discovery channel programme about barges on our waterways. It was an absolutely fabulous programme. It showed what could be done with canals.
I hope that our canals will be improved, that they will be returned to the people and that the people will be able to use them properly. All those matters should be considered along with the Bill. These are not simply commercial considerations; we should think of the public —although, if things are handled properly, there may be tremendous spin-offs. There may be a regeneration of the small boat industry for which Britain was once famous; that includes Scotland, of course.
Scotland is very interested in boats. Since Windermere got rid of all its speedboat fanatics, they have come up to Scotland to have fun playing on the banks of the Clyde. We in Scotland do not mind spending a day or two on the canals. The boating community and industry are very mobile: this is one of the fastest growing leisure sports in Great Britain. I am not opposed to improving the waterways; indeed, I strongly support the idea, and I believe that the Government should put more money into it.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is clearly concerned about environmental issues. One of the 13ill's purposes is to enshrine in law the recommendation made a

few years ago by the Select Committee on Environment that the British Waterways Board should have a specific environmental duty. The hon. Gentleman, surely, will welcome that.

Mr. Graham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention.
I am worried that, following the privatisation of the water industry, many people have not been given the right to walk on ground that is actually owned by the public. I am deeply concerned about the possibility that a similar unfairness will result in this instance. We may end up paying a fast buck to walk along a canal along which donkeys used to walk free.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) has considered the environmental issues. The environment is dear to my heart; as a Scottish Member, I am fortunate enough to live in the countryside, and to have the opportunity to walk free and unhibited along the banks of the Clyde. There is nothing finer than to walk along the banks of the Clyde and watch the yachts and pleasure boats moving up and down. That experience is free, and I hope that it will remain so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is Scottish, but, as far as I know, the Clyde is not a canal.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: It is very difficult to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham).
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), and congratulate him on his sponsorship of the Bill. I believe that the carry-over motion will benefit the canals, particularly the Forth and Clyde canal, part of which is in my constituency.
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman mentioned enabling Bills passed some 200 years ago: at that time, a Mr. Lawrence Dundas, a Member of Parliament, promoted an enabling Bill involving the Forth and Clyde canal. Given our current preoccupation with the Registration of Members' Interests, it is also interesting to learn from the history of the canal that Mr. Dundas owned the Forth arid Clyde Canal company, and saw no reason why he should not promote the Bill in the Commons.
The canal stretches from Dumbartonshire—a town called Bowling—to Grangemouth, in the Forth estuary. I understand that Mr: Dundas also owned a good deal of land in Grangemouth, and wanted to make it into a port.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the leisure facilities that canals can offer. It is not necessary to own a boat to enjoy such facilities.
In my constituency, many people, including myself and my family, enjoy a walk along the towpath of the canal which can stretch for many miles. Those people enjoy not only the canal itself but the wildlife which the canal nurtures. It is important in an industrial city like my own that people have little oases where they can see a part of the countryside that exists within a city centre. I know that that is a contradiction in terms, but the canal within my constituency has created a stretch of urban countryside.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned commercialisation. The Inland Waterways Board has made the Forth and Clyde canal navigable from Port Dundas in my constituency—named after the hon.


Member I just mentioned—to a stretch called Kirkintilloch. Pleasure craft can now go on to that stretch, and there is talk of a marina on the boundary of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) on a stretch called the Hamiltonhill basin. There is concern that, if that marina goes ahead, the general public may be denied access to that part of the canal.
The Minister cannot reply to the debate, but I wonder whether I could put on the record the fact that it would be helpful if those involved with the canal were able to give assurances that if a marina is to be built for well-off people, the general public will not be denied access to a part of the canal which they have previously enjoyed.
The carry-over motion and the Bill will give the House the power to examine the work of British Waterways. I am sure that the Minister will give British Waterways a free hand, but the Bill will allow him to consult its board and see that it is carrying out its duties.
Over and above the walking facilities that the canal can offer, many young people and their parents get out on the canal for a spot of coarse fishing. That is becoming increasingly popular in Scotland as access to some rivers and lochs becomes more difficult because of the high cost of permits. Many young people go on to the canal to fish, and I hope that the carry-over motion and the Bill allow that type of activity to be encouraged.
The general public do not realise that British Waterways not only owns the canal and the towpath, but, in some places, owns large stretches of land on each side of those towpaths. That can include acres of valuable land, which British Waterways inherited-from the old canal companies. The board has recently sold some patches of land, and entrepreneurs have built pubs on the canal bank. Walkers may enjoy a refreshment there, and the boaters will do likewise when boats start going on to the canal.
I hope that any sale of the land will not deny people access to the canal. I also hope that perhaps at a later stage the Minister will give assurances that the proceeds from any of the land that is sold by the board will go back into maintaining the facilities of the canal, renewing the lock gates that have been lying in disrepair and ensuring that not only the canal banks but the towpaths are not in a dangerous condition. I hope that the Minister will not encourage the board to dispose of land, but if it does so, I hope that it will do so in such a way that whatever finance is raised goes back into the canal and does not go to the Treasury.

Mr. Redmond: May I point out that the Government's record—the Government support this private Bill—is to deny the public access to lots of public land? I was told, "Get it in black and white. Do not leave it until after you have signed on the dotted line. Get it included in the Bill. Get it included in any agreement before you accept." My hon. Friend is making important points. Before he agrees to the Bill, he must ensure that those points become part and parcel of the Bill.

Mr. Martin: That is why the carry-over motion is important. That is what the Bill is all about. We should get things in black and white so that the general public—the people we represent—know exactly where they stand. That is important. I hope that safeguards will be given.
Let us consider the commercial aspect. When I first discovered the canals as a boy of 10, there were tenements on the banks of the canal belonging to the workers who serviced and looked after the canal. Thankfully, those tenements have gone. They were very badly maintained. In other words, they were slums. We now have some beautiful developments on the banks of the canal.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: rose in his place and claimed to move,That the Question be now put.

Question put,That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley) (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The new system used on the annunciator, which has been in operation since we came back from the Christmas recess, shows the item purely as a Division, whereas it always used to be shown as a Division on the closure. I believe that some hon. Members are mistaken over on what the House is dividing at the present time. Does not that matter need clarification, not only for tonight's business, but for future occasions?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take the hon. Gentleman's point and it will be brought to the notice of the House's authorities. However, I understand that what is currently shown on the annunciator is perfectly all right.

The House having divided:  Ayes 271, Noes 151.

Division No. 83
[10.12 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Aitken, Jonathan
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Alexander, Richard
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Allen, Graham
Day, Stephen


Alton, David
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Amess, David
Devlin, Tim


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dewar, Donald


Arbuthnot, James
Dicks, Terry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Ashby, David
Dover, Den


Atkins, Robert
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Dunn, Bob


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Dykes, Hugh


Baldry, Tony
Eagle, Ms Angela


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Enright, Derek


Bates, Michael
Etherington, Bill


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evennett, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Faber, David


Booth, Hartley
Fabricant, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bowden, Andrew
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bowis, John
Fishburn, Dudley


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Flynn, Paul


Brandreth, Gyles
Forman, Nigel


Bright, Graham
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Forth, Eric


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Burns, Simon
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Butcher, John
French, Douglas


Butterfill, John
Fry, Sir Peter


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gale, Roger


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Gallie, Phil


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gardiner, Sir George


Carrington, Matthew
Garnier, Edward


Chapman, Sydney
Garrett, John


Clappison, James
Gillan, Cheryl


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Coe, Sebastian
Gorst, John


Colvin, Michael
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Congdon, David
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Conway, Derek
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Couchman, James
Hague, William





Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hardy, Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Harris, David
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Harvey, Nick
Olner, William


Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hawkins, Nick
Ottaway, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Page, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Paice, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patnick, Irvine


Hendry, Charles
Patten, Rt Hon John


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hinchliffe, David
Pawsey, James


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Pickles, Eric


Home Robertson, John
Pike, Peter L.


Horam, John
Pope, Greg


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jack, Michael
Rendel, David


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Richards, Rod


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Riddick, Graham


Jenkin, Bernard
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jessel, Toby
Robathan, Andrew


Johnston, Sir Russell
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rooker, Jeff


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Key, Robert
Sackville, Tom


Kilfedder, Sir James
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kirkwood, Archy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shersby, Michael


Knox, Sir David
Sims, Roger


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Soames, Nicholas


Legg, Barry
Speed, Sir Keith


Lidington, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lightbown, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Spring, Richard


Luff, Peter
Sproat, Iain


Lynne, Ms Liz
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


McCartney, Ian
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McCrea, Rev William
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Steinberg, Gerry


MacKay, Andrew
Stephen, Michael


Maclean, David
Stevenson, George


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Stewart, Allan


Mahon, Alice
Streeter, Gary


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sweeney, Walter


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Thomason, Roy


Martlew, Eric
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mates, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Milligan, Stephen
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mills, Iain
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Trend, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Trotter, Neville


Monro, Sir Hector
Turner, Dennis


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Twinn, Dr Ian


Morley, Elliot
Tyler, Paul


Mudie, George
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Needham, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William






Walden, George
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Waller, Gary
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Ward, John
Wise, Audrey


Waterson, Nigel
Wood, Timothy


Watts, John
Worthington, Tony


Wells, Bowen
Yeo, Tim


Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Whittingdale, John



Widdecombe, Ann
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Mr. Barry Field and Mr. Alan Duncan.


Willetts, David



Wilshire. David





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Faulds, Andrew


Ainger, Nick
Foulkes, George


Austin-Walker, John
Fraser, John


Barnes, Harry
George, Bruce


Battle, John
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bayley, Hugh
Godsiff, Roger


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Gordon, Mildred


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Graham, Thomas


Benton, Joe
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bermingham, Gerald
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Betts, Clive
Gunnell, John


Blair, Tony
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Boateng, Paul
Hood, Jimmy


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Bradley, Keith
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hutton, John


Burden, Richard
Illsley, Eric


Callaghan, Jim
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Janner, Greville


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cann, Jamie
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Clapham, Michael
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Khabra, Piara S.


Coffey, Ann
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cohen, Harry
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Corbett, Robin
Litherland, Robert


Corbyn, Jeremy
Livingstone, Ken


Cousins, Jim
Llwyd, Elfyn


Cox, Tom
Macdonald, Calum


Cummings, John
McFall, John


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dafis, Cynog
McMaster, Gordon


Davidson, Ian
McWilliam, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dixon, Don
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Meacher, Michael


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Meale, Alan


Eastham, Ken
Michael, Alun





Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Sedgemore, Brian


Milbum, Alan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Miller, Andrew
Short, Clare


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Simpson, Alan


Mowlam, Marjorie
Skinner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Spellar, John


O'Hara, Edward
Tipping, Paddy


Parry, Robert
Watson, Mike


Patchett, Terry
Wigley, Dafydd


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wray, Jimmy


Redmond, Martin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)



Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Tellers for the Noes:


Rooney, Terry
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Terry Lewis.


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly:

The House divided: Ayes297,Noes 104.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Promoters of the British Waterways Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read for the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the last Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the last Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.

Education

Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (Mandatory Awards) (No. 2) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 2914), dated 26th November 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th November, be annulled.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this it will be convenient to consider the following motion:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (Student Loans) (No. 2) Regulations 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 2915), dated 29th November 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th November, be annulled.

Mr. Foster: I am sure that the House welcomes the hon. Member for Oldham Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) on his first outing on Labour's Front Bench in an education debate. However, this debate was initiated by Liberal Democrats, demonstrating once again the high degree of importance that my party attaches to education. This debate concerns a broken Government promise. It will highlight the way—[Interruption.]

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am seated only a few feet from my hon. Friend, but because of the noise beyond the Bar of the House I cannot hear him. Will you have that noise stopped so that the House can hear my hon. Friend?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right. I am also having difficulty hearing the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). I hope that the House will settle down.

Mr. Foster: This debate will highlight Government attempts to transfer part of the debt created by their economic mismanagement to students in higher education.
To understand the impact of the regulations on students, it is important to consider a number of related higher education issues. This debate is taking place at a time of increasing uncertainty, created in part by the Government's stop-go policies on the expansion of student numbers and frequent changes to the relationship between tuition fees and funding council grant—described only today by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals as policy on the hoof. Universities do not know whether they are coming or going, and they find it almost impossible to make long-term funding planning decisions. The regulations will have the same effect on students.

Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman is attacking Government policy on higher education support, but does he not agree that the United Kingdom's system of student support is the most generous anywhere in the free world?

Mr. Foster: On that matter, I will take the advice of the Secretary of State for Education, who told the House only a month ago that we should be wary of making international comparisons of that sort. My next point is relevant to the hon. Gentleman's intervention, so I hope that he will listen.
This debate is also taking place at a time when it is becoming apparent that the Government's much-vaunted expansion of higher education has been done on the cheap.

Mr. Marshall: That is not so.

Mr. Foster: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen to the examples I shall give of the way in which students suffer as a result.
Last month, the Secretary of State boasted to the House that the recent increase in student numbers was the equivalent of 12 new universities—

Mr. Marshall: rose—

Mr. Foster: I shall not give way again to the hon. Gentleman.
The Secretary of State failed to tell the House that he had not made available the capital required for those new universities.

Mr. Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member who is laying a prayer to refuse to answer yes or no to a basic question?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The hon. Gentleman's speech is entirely in order so far.

Mr. Foster: Figures provided by the Library demonstrate that expenditure per higher education student has declined 22 per cent. over the last four years. An analysis of the November Budget by the CVCP shows that it will reduce a further 4.5 per cent. next year. It is no wonder that students are having to face worsening staff-student ratios, overcrowded lecture theatres, inadequate library and other facilities—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: No, I want to make some progress—then I will give way to the hon. Lady.
Students are having to cope with inadequately maintained buildings—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise that we have time for only a short debate and many hon. Members wish to contribute.
I undertand that the current repair and maintenance backlog in higher education stands at £1 billion and stories of the problems are legion. For example—I hope that the Minister will respond to this—students at Mid-Kent college were told just before Christmas that some of the courses on which they had embarked could no longer be continued at their college.

Mr. Harry Greenway: rose—

Mr. Foster: I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Hon. Members: Sexist.

Mr. Harry Greenway: In deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), may I say that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I visited the new Thames Valley university for half a day this week? It has problems, but buildings are on the way to accommodate all students properly. I met thousands of students, not one of whom said that he or she was not happy. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that they all said that they were happy to be there, and thousands more would like to be there, despite what he says?

Mr. Foster: I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman had made that visit, but he may wish to know that I have visited a large number of higher education institutions in the past 18 months, and his experience has not been replicated by mine.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Foster: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, but that must be the last time I do so.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It would have been easier and more courteous for the hon. Gentleman to do so in the first place.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the superb St. Martin's college and Lancaster university have both completed exceptionally good building programmes which I was happy to take the Minister round a couple of months ago? Those programmes are magnificent. The hon. Gentleman referred to capital spending; the total capital grant overall will be £322 million, £382 million and £424 million between 1994–96. That is a 20 per cent. increase, and I do not know how it can be said that those institutions are being starved of funds.

Mr. Foster: I apologise to the hon. Lady for not giving way earlier, as she has now enabled me to make a point that I might otherwise have been unable to make. The hon. Lady is right to say that there is to be an increase in capital expenditure in higher education—I acknowledge that. Next year there will be an increase of I per cent. in real terms. That increase and the increase over three years mentioned by the hon. Lady will go no way towards compensating for the increased dereliction in our university buildings. Will the Minister be good enough to respond to my claim that there is a backlog of repair and maintenance of £1 billion in higher education?

Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: No, I cannot give way any more.
The regulations are part of a double whammy on students. First, they have to suffer the vandalism of the appalling attack on student unions; secondly, they have to suffer the Government's broken promise as contained in the regulations. I will explain how the Government have broken their promise.
When student loans were introduced, the 1988 White Paper said:
The maximum grant and the average contribution will be maintained at the 1990–91 cash level.
That commitment was underscored by the Baroness Blatch in another place, when she said in 1990:
The grant will be maintained in cash terms at its 1990–91 level."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 March 1990; Vol. 517, c. 57.]
At the same time, it was made clear that the value of grants and loans would broadly equalise in the year 2007–2008. But despite those undertakings, the regulations will bring forward the expected date of equalisation by 10 years and would cut the cash value of grants by 27 per cent. over the next three years. That will require an increase over the same period of more than 120 per cent. in the loans necessary to compensate.
What will be the effect on students of these broken promises? They will accelerate the growing problem of student debt and poverty. Students already face significant problems in that respect. Even with grants and loans,

almost all students would be better off if they registered as unemployed. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has estimated that this year the average shortfall in students' incomes will be £1,100.
Not surprisingly, students face ever-mounting debts. The Barclays bank survey published in August last year was based on a sample nearly twice the size of that used for the Department's recent survey of students' incomes and expenditure. The Barclays survey revealed that 81 per cent. of students ended the last academic year owing an average of £1,672.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): Does the hon. Gentleman regard that survey as more authoritative and comprehensive than ours, one of a continuing series, which was supported by a committee including representatives of the National Union of Students?

Mr. Foster: I am happy to tell the Minister that I have seen that study; there have been a number of other studies, too. Credence must be given to the Barclays survey because its sample size was nearly twice that of the Department's survey.
The survey showed an increase in student debt of 22 per cent. in one year, and the figures ignored many other kinds of debt, such as debts owed to parents.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of a widely based survey about which I learned today from a group of students at Sheffield university? Oddly enough, they were more interested in meeting Labour Members here than Liberal Democrats —I cannot think why. This intensive professional survey showed that Sheffield students, after paying housing costs, are left with £100 to live on for a month. That has to pay for heat, light, books, travel, food and everything else.

Mr. Foster: I am aware of that study. The hon. Lady will be interested to know that those same students faxed me some information yesterday.
These regulations, if agreed to, will make student debt worse—the more so in view of the additional pressures created by rising accommodation costs and VAT on fuel. The pressures will bear down heavily on the 5,400 full-time home students aged over 50 who cannot even obtain student loans. They will also affect the thousands of part-time students who—wrongly, in the view of my party —rarely obtain grants, let alone loans.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Foster: I will not give way.
The one thing that students in higher education are guaranteed from their courses nowadays is practical experience in the management of rising debt.

Mr. Keith Mans: rose—

Mr. Foster: All this is particularly unfair to students already on courses, who find that they will have to borrow more money than they had planned to. The effects of the debt problem are well known to all hon. Members. An increasing number of students have to take jobs, not just during vacations, but during term time too. The effect on their studies is becoming increasingly apparent.
I remind Conservative Members who see no problems arising from term-time working of the view expressed less than four years ago by the noble Baroness Blatch:
the Government provide an adequate level of support for a student to be maintained without work during the course of study."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 June, 1990; Vol. 520, c. 1790.]
Those words will certainly bring hollow laughter from present-day students.
At least two other problems will be exacerbated by the regulations.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: No, I will not.
First, there is likely to be a further increase in drop-out rates. Already there is an alarming all-time high of 8 per cent. of higher education students failing to complete their courses. Secondly, it will inhibit the further widening of access to higher education. While numerically more students from social classes four and five have entered higher education, as a percentage of the student population the increase has been extremely modest. If the regulations are accepted, no increase in that percentage is likely to occur. University education will remain predominantly for the children of the better off.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: I will not give way.
I will conclude with some comments about the loans system. The Student Loans Company received more than £16 million from the Government last year to cover administrative costs, but that does not reflect the true cost of the scheme. The CVCP has estimated that the average cost to universities per application is £7, but the company provides institutions with £4 per loan application. That leaves the university to pick up the tab of £3 per application.
There is little evidence that higher education will benefit financially from the shift to loans. Original Government figures allow 25 years to break even. However, bearing in mind the Minister's written answer to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on 4 November and his correspondence with me prior to the debate, the House will be interested to know when the Minister thinks the student loan scheme will break even and when it will have a negative effect on the PSBR.
There are certainly some worrying trends. According to the Public Accounts Committee last month, the number of students now deferring repayments has reached 40 per cent. That 40 per cent. provide ample evidence, if such was needed, of the difficulty encountered by graduates in finding jobs and of the waste of talent caused by the Government's economic policies.
The CVCP has revealed some other startling figures. It claims that of borrowers in repayment status, 8.8 per cent. —that is, 12,786 students—were in arrears on 31 July 1993, and that 6.6 per cent. were in default, more than two months late in repaying. We may have to wait until the middle of the next century before the scheme breaks even. I hope that the Minister will pay particular attention to my next comment, which is that that forecast is based on what we presently know.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: No, I will not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) to recognise that the hon. Gentleman is not giving way to her.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am distressed that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is misleading students who are over the age of 50. Some 5,500 are being misled.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Lady wishes to catch my eye later in the debate, I shall do my best to call her.

Mr. Foster: I am sure that the House will be interested to note that the figure to which the hon. Lady refers in her point of order was provided to me by the Minister.
I hope that the Minister will comment on the following important point, if he has a chance to speak. We are all concerned about when the Student Loans Company will break even and when it will have a negative effect on the public sector borrowing requirement. Even the information that we have been given so far, which may lead us to the middle of next century, is based on what we know to be the Government's intention.
There is a possibility that the Government intend to phase out maintenance grants altogether. Some Conservative Members have referred to the possibility of introducing a top-up fee system. It is important that we have assurances this evening on both those matters, not least because of the anxiety caused by yesterday's announcement that the student awards branch in Scotland is to transfer from direct Scottish Office control, paving the way for the amalgamation of the Student Loans Company and the ultimate abolition of grants. The House deserves a response from the Minister.
The House will be pleased to know that I am about to conclude by referring to a Department of Education press release dated 16 December 1993 which shows the lengths to which the Government are willing to go to put a gloss on their appalling policies towards students. In describing what the broken promise that the accelerated switch from grants to loans will mean, the press release claimed that it would
enhance still further the flexibility of our system of student support".
Most hon. Members know that for the words "flexibility of" we should substitute "cuts to". In view of what is contained in the regulations, students may well wish to reflect on the flexibility of Government promises.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): Those of us who are familiar with the speeches of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and who retain some sympathy and affection for him cannot help feeling that he is a latter-day Malvolio, not so much intellectually challenged as merely intellectually cross-gartered. He produced a typical modern speech from a Liberal Democrat, a speech of virtual reality whereby the performer or propeller flails around in all directions but somehow the aeroplane never manages to get off the ground. It is entirely unsafe and unchallenging.

Mr. Derek Enright: That is a mixed metaphor.

Mr. Boswell: I am delighted to mix metaphors in support of the official Opposition, who will no doubt have an opportunity to clarify their policies.
Among all the stuff was a heavily disguised plea for more resources. There was no mention of where they were to come from or how they were to be applied. There was a grudging concession that, because we were prepared to face the issues, we were prepared to provide an extra 20 per cent. on the capital budget for higher education.
I may be able to help the hon. Gentleman on one specific point. I was surprised that he was not familiar with the authoritative international study of comparative student support carried out by the Australian Government economist Bruce Chapman called "Austudy: Towards a more flexible approach". It concluded by stating that the average United Kingdom student is the most grant-subsidised of all.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Just before we leave my hon. Friend's point about the amount of money spent per student, I hope that the Minister does not deny that, given that there has been a significant expansion in numbers—nobody denies that—capital expenditure on buildings, plant and equipment has not kept pace with the expansion in numbers. That is why vice-chancellors and principals are arguing that expenditure per student is falling.

Mr. Boswell: That is because the university sector has an enviable record of achieving greater efficiency and greater productivity. I am surprised to hear the Liberal Democrats denying that.
These are the latest in a series of annual regulations. I remind the House that their approval is essential to ensure that students receive from next autumn the significant increases in maintenance support that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget statement on 30 November. Their timing is influenced by the new arrangements for the financial year.
Aside from including the new grant and loan and fee rates for 1994–95, the regulations are largely unchanged from previous years. We have made a few purely technical changes, and we have made two specific changes to the regulations on loans to make the scheme more student friendly. The first change provides for a simpler application process for students who have already taken out a loan. If they want to apply for a second loan—

Mr. Hugh Bayley: Did the Minister hear the Chief Secretary to the Treasury's recent statement that students should perhaps pay course and examination fees? That would obviously limit access to higher education. On behalf of his Department, will the Minister specifically rule out the possibility that students might be made personally liable to pay course fees?

Mr. Boswell: I will not be tempted, by York or Durham, to speculate on matters that go beyond our very clear proposals that are set out in the regulations. That also applies to the questions of the hon. Member for Bath. We have set out plans and I am doing my best to explain them to the House.
The second technical change is that borrowers are to be notified promptly of their entitlement to defer repayments. I am sure that all reasonable Members would want to welcome those important changes.
Quite understandably, the hon. Member for Bath focused on wider issues of student support. I am perfectly happy to stand by the Government's record and to explain it to the House.
The loans scheme is a success
are not my words; they are the words of a national newspaper, normally thought to be on the left, when introducing its student finance supplement some months ago.
The loans scheme is an accepted part of the higher education landscape. More than 1 million loans have now been taken out—

Mr. Enright: The words came from The Guardian.

Mr. Boswell: Indeed.
We are already receiving a significant volume of repayment, amounting to £18 million to date. That money is coming in and it is available to the Exchequer for the support of students and the university sector.
Despite attempts to rubbish it, the Student Loans Company is also a success. Its performance matches the best of private sector standards. Its unit cost per account managed was less than £21 last year and is continuing to fall. We have made it clear that any justifiable, reasonable administrative costs of the universities can be underwritten. The figure that is charged is essentially a matter for negotiation between the universities and the Student Loans Company. However, I am willing to receive a case if it was felt that the figure was inappropriate—for example, in relation to volume which continues to expand.
The loans company's collection performance is impressive by any standards. Only 4.1 per cent. of borrowers are currently in default. That is a good record when compared to many commercial companies. It gives the lie to those terrible warnings we heard when the scheme was introduced. The regulations build on the success of that scheme.
We have always intended to replace grants progressively with loans until the two elements were broadly equal in value. As the hon. Member for Bath knows, if any progress were to be made beyond that—and we have no plans for that—it would require an affirmative resolution of the House.
As the hon. Member for Bath said, so far we have moved towards that goal by freezing the level of the maintenance grant and uprating the loan facility each year. But he will have noticed our success in bringing inflation under control. The very fact that we have been so successful in doing that means that that progressive shift would be extremely slow, so we have decided to accelerate the process by reducing the level of main rates of grant for the next three years and making corresponding increases in the loan rates. By 1996–97, the values of the two elements will be equal.

Mr. Enright: What estimates have been made of the number of students who have been put off by the fact that they would have to take out loans?

Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman will hear in just a moment what has happened to student numbers since the introduction of the loan scheme.
We hear much propaganda from the Opposition parties about allegations that we are cutting the total level of support available to students. Next year, through the main rates of grant and loan, the total amount available to students will not be lower but 4 per cent. higher than it is this year. That is a good and fair increase in a difficult economic climate. Supplementary allowances payable to older students, disabled students and those with dependants will also be increased by 4 per cent. while the average value of the loan facility itself will be increased by 44 per cent.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Boswell: No. I should like to make progress, in fairness to hon. Members who wish to speak.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) would not let me speak.

Mr. Boswell: If I may ask for a little patience, I want to press on with explaining the matter.
It is wrong to suggest that the shift from grant to loan will cause financial hardship or will force students to drop out of their courses. Students do not need to repay anything while studying. The money that they actually receive, as long as they choose to take out the loan available, will be the same in real terms next year as this year. It is scaremongering to suggest that graduates will be weighed down with enormous debts. Borrowers pay nothing back until their income reaches a reasonable level. This year, that is about £14,000. There are very few starting salaries, even in London, at that level. We keep repayment terms under review to ensure that repayments for those earning more than that amount are manageable. The average is currently a modest £11 a month.

Mrs. Campbell: Is not the Minister being a little disingenuous in supposing that all students take out loans? What percentage of students are presently taking out a loan, and what percentage are existing entirely on the grant?

Mr. Boswell: I do not know what goes on in the Labour party, but we believe in freedom of choice. It is open to students to take out a loan or not. The figure has been rising towards approximately 50 per cent. I did not say, nor did I imply, that all students avail themselves. If they do not, one wonders whether their situation is as bad as all that, just as one wonders, bearing in mind the disgraceful attack on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the London School of Economics, whether some students are so ill financed that, instead of spending their money on eggs for personal consumption, they decide to sling them at the Secretary of State. I hope that the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) will repudiate that disgraceful action.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) correctly alluded to the fact that students over 50 might not obtain a loan. He omitted to say that a student over 50 who starts a course is, in common with other mature students, entitled to a basic means-tested

maintenance grant of up to £1,045 for which he can apply to his local authority. That fact should be on the record. The hon. Member for Bath might have put off people of that age.

Mr. Boswell: As ever, my hon. Friend is entirely right. It is clear that the hon. Member for Bath would benefit from further study.
Of course there will always be a small number of students who find themselves in financial difficulty. For those, and for the small minority who are not eligible for loans, institutions can and do use the access funds to help. For the coming year, we have increased those funds by 10 per cent. Nor should we forget the impact on parents. In the coming year, the contribution from parents whose earnings rise in line with the national average will continue to fall in real terms; for parents whose incomes rises more slowly, even the cash contribution will fall.
The most absurd claim made by many about the loans scheme is that it would have a disastrous effect on access to higher education. In October 1993, for the first time ever, more than 30 per cent. of young people entered higher education. We have reached our target for the year 2000 in 1994–95: that is a triumph. It is more than double the participation rate of five years ago, and 60 per cent. higher than the rate when the loans scheme was introduced in 1990. Is it not interesting that student numbers really began to take off at precisely the time when the scheme was introduced?
There is no evidence to support claims that students from lower-income backgrounds are disadvantaged. Our recently published survey—which, unlike the Barclays bank survey mentioned by the hon. Member for Bath, was not self-referred; it was a representative survey—found that students entering higher education from less well-off backgrounds had shifted from being the minority in 1988 to being the majority now. The loans scheme reduces students' dependence on their parents, and in so doing it widens access.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I believe that my constituency contains the highest proportion of students in the country. Does it not concern the Minister and the Government that the expansion of student numbers has taken place largely in such subjects as humanities, rather than in science and technology? The country desperately needs more people qualified in those subjects.
Is that not partly because it is far more expensive to educate people in science and technology? The Government claim that there has been a reduction in costs for students. That is partly because we are educating those who are cheaper to educate, rather than those who are more expensive to educate but whom the country badly needs.

Mr. Boswell: I am astonished: the paranoia is the paranoia of the Labour party, but the attack on sociology from that quarter is entirely new. Moreover, is it not remarkable that the hon. Gentleman did not give us credit for our new engineering bursary scheme, which deals with our joint concerns?
The Government want a high-quality higher education system that is not confined to an elite. We are not closet elitists.

Mr. Greg Pope: The Minister has talked about the expansion of student numbers since the introduction of loans. Will he explain why the


overwhelming majority of those extra students come from social classes 1 and 2? In 1992, only 7 per cent. of university admissions came from social classes 4 and 5. What increased access is there for the poorest members of society?

Mr. Boswell: I have already given the overall figures from our study of participation. I am very glad to note the increase in participation. I am also surprised that the hon. Gentleman gave us no credit for the huge increase in the number of part-time and mature students. That, too, will deal with our joint concerns.

Dr. Keith Hampson: I remember taking part in a similar debate nearly 20 years ago. Did not the massive expansion in the humanities and social sciences take place in the 1960s, under a Labour Government?
Despite the view expressed in the Robbins report, and echoed consistently by Opposition Members, that a grant scheme would bring in far more from the so-called working class—or blue-collar workers—it never did. Throughout the years of the grants-only system, the increase was marginal and statistically unimportant.

Mr. Boswell: I agree with my hon. Friend. We now have the practical means of access, and the national curriculum, which has been led so well by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends, will deliver high-class education even in the deprived urban areas from which we want people to go to university.
Let us not forget that we do not want to put insupportable burdens on the taxpayer. We cannot will the expansion without providing the resources. Undoubtedly, higher education provides a benefit to the economy and to society, but the main beneficiaries—let us not mince words —are the graduates themselves. Is it not right that they should be expected to contribute? The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals thinks so, the Royal Society thinks so and even some of the more enlightened Opposition Members think so. The Government agree with them, and that is why we made the proposals.
I suppose we shall hear the truth about Labour party policies—"now you see them, now you don't." It is
time to come clean about the Labour policies, as has been
suggested by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I wrote to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on 17 November, and I have not yet had a reply. It is four months since the Labour party's so-called "Green Paper" on higher education was prepared and printed. However, it was withdrawn at the eleventh hour on the explicit instructions of the Leader of the Opposition. No wonder, as he was obviously embarrassed to associate himself with it. The document floated such crazy ideas as the introduction of a corporate levy on business to help to pay for higher education. The Labour party's priorities, shall we say, were not quite in that direction.
We need to hear from the Labour party tonight, and I will give it time to tell us what it proposes. There would be no clearer contrast than with the Government's clear policy on higher education. The regulations which we are debating are central and fundamental to that policy. Taken as a whole, the arrangements for student support are fair and generous, and many students in other European countries such as Germany—which I know well—would give their eye teeth for such generous support as we give.
The regulations allow a fair level of financial support for students while they are studying. They provide equal support for all regardless of background, and they share the cost of a student's attendance in higher education more fairly between graduates, parents and taxpayers. The regulations are good for parents, good for taxpayers, good for students and good for higher education, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Bryan Davies: I remind the Minister that the debate is about regulations which will become the law of the land once the Government's supporters are driven through the Division Lobby this evening. We are not engaged in a general debate about higher education; we are dealing principally with the Government's appalling legislative proposals which will make life more difficult for students in higher education. In my view, they will reduce the opportunities for students to enter higher education.
In passing, I will mention that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) commented on the fact that tonight's debate has been made possible because of a Liberal party prayer, which of course it has. Prayers are debated on the Floor of the House when they have the agreement of the Government of the day, and some collusion is therefore necessary. The last period in which we were accustomed to having Liberal prayers debated on the Floor of the House was when the Conservative Government thought that the rise of the Social Democratic party might do damage to the Labour party, as indeed it did. I must give a warning to the Liberal party: "Timeo danaos et dona ferentes"—it should watch that lot once they start handing out a few free gifts.

Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: I have only just begun my speech, and I will give way in a moment.
The Government's measures are born of panic. They are not about enhancing opportunities in higher education. They are a response to a £50 billion public expenditure deficit and an attempt to restrict expansion, which the Government regard as out of control. The demand of students for opportunities in higher education—a demand to which we would have thought that the Conservative party, with its free market principles, would seek to respond—has to be choked off by deliberate Government attempts to restrict opportunities next year.
For example, it is clear that there will be 10,000 fewer places in higher education next. year than would have existed, because of the 3.5 per cent. cut in the Government's—

Mr. Boswell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: Indeed I will.

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. First, I apologise. It was remiss of me not to welcome him formally to the Dispatch Box for his first Front-Bench speech.
Would he care to tell the House how many students there were in higher education when the Labour Government of which he was a member left office, and how great the proportion is today if, for the purposes of hypothesis, I accept the likely student numbers next year that he suggested?

Mr. Davies: There is growing awareness, even in the dimmer ranks of the Conservative party, that we need to enhance our skills in this country. We can do so only by increasing the education budget. It is palpably clear from the public expenditure White Papers that the Government are not prepared to fund the continued rate of expansion in higher education numbers that we have had in recent years. The chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, reacting immediately to the Government's proposals of public expenditure in November, said:
Having stoked up the aspirations of young people and encouraged them into further education, the Government are now attempting to deny them the opportunity for which so many are now clamouring.
I fail to see how the Government can deny that fact.

Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman was asked a question a moment ago. Will he confirm that, in 1979, one in eight were in higher education and today it is one in three? Is that not progress that he should welcome?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that we still have a considerable way to go. The number of people that we are educating in higher education is below the average for advanced countries. It will remain below the average under the Government's present proposals.
The Government are involved in cutting the maintenance grant. That is what the regulations do. Originally, the plan was to create rough equality between the maintenance grant and student loans in the year 2007. That was the proposal in the 1988 White Paper. Why the sudden dramatic acceleration? Is it because the Government have rethought their higher education policy on the basis of fresh principles, or is it a panic reaction to the costs of higher education and a determination that they should be borne out of the private resources of the students, many of whom are those who are least well placed to meet such costs?

Mr. Nigel Forman: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I, too, welcome him to his new responsibilities. Is he aware that, in a society such as ours, it was possible under the earlier arrangements for people from much poorer backgrounds and families to have to contribute through their taxes to the cost of student support? Does he accept that this rebalancing, putting a greater emphasis on loans, is a fair policy?

Mr. Davies: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's premise that there is inequity in higher education, in that students from relatively prosperous backgrounds are subsidised by the taxes paid by the less well-off. We have not argued that higher education is part of a redistributive welfare state. I believe, however, that there are important gains to the community from the development of higher education. Those gains should be recognised in the way in which we finance higher education, but thrusting the loan system on to the individual student will lead to inequity.
Under the Government's solution, students will be expected to incur substantial debts. The Minister says that such debts are of no concern to students, because the loan element has not deterred them. As the Minister recognised, however, loans have been only a small part of the total resources available to students. Moreover, in a slightly more relaxed vein, the Government's intention was that the period over which the loan would increase as a percentage of the resources available to students would be almost two

decades. Now, with brutal suddenness—within the next three years—students will find that half the resources on which they are individually dependent will have to come from their own pockets or take the form of a loan.

Dr. Hampson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if a student takes the full loan and also receives a maintenance grant, he is well over 20 per cent. and even 30 per cent.—it depends on the balance—better off than he was before the loan was introduced? Was not that one of the main arguments of the first proponent of the loan system in the then Department of Education? Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do—because we attended a conference together many years ago—that the first proponent was Lord Peston when he was the special adviser to a Labour Secretary of State.

Mr. Davies: I am being asked to commend the idea that a student with a loan facility has slightly more resources than under the Conservative Government's grant arrangements in the mid-1980s. Well, I accept that fact. In the mid-1980s, British students' maintenance awards were below the level that obtained throughout the 1970s when my party was last in government.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have received figures from Durham students' union? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am not reading; I am merely giving some figures. A Durham student's maintenance bill this year is £1,900. In 1995–96, the student grant will be £1,834, so by 1995–96 a Durham student's college bill will be higher than his grant and he will have to take out a student loan simply to exist, after having paid all his bills. A student arriving in Durham in 1996 will have to borrow £4,156 just to survive.

Mr. Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that graphic illustration of my case. To his illustration I would add the obvious statement that, although the loan scheme may not have been a deterrent to entry into higher education when it formed a small part of student entitlement, it will become a great deterrent in future.
The loan scheme is fatally flawed. Private enterprise would not touch the loans for students scheme. We all remember the noble Lady Thatcher, the previous Prime Minister, touting the scheme around the banks with all her authority and their reluctance to have anything to do with it. We all recognise that higher education institutions subsidise the loan companies because the loan companies receive less in resources than it costs them to process the loans for each student. The scheme costs £11 million to administer, and it has been condemned as inefficient by no less a body than the Public Accounts Select Committee.
The system, which the Conservative party suggests is the basis for expansion of higher education and for raising our skills level, offers nothing to part-time students, who account for 35 per cent. of students in higher education. The Government have no proposals to offer support or encouragement to such students.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman was having a short sabbatical when we passed the loan scheme legislation. However, he will see, if he looks back at the debate, that it was difficult to get anybody on the Labour Front Bench to commit himself to the pledge to which he now wishes to commit it—that the Labour party will do away with the loan scheme when it returns to office,


and put grants in its place. May we have that commitment from the hon. Gentleman this evening, or is he talking humbug?

Mr. Bryan Davies: Let me remind, or perhaps inform, the hon. Gentleman that I may have been taking a sabbatical but I was keeping a fairly beady eye on the proceedings of the House from a vantage point that gave me a clear analysis of the horrors which the Government have been visiting on the British people in recent years. The loan system does nothing for part-time students. It does nothing to help the growing crisis in post-graduate education. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Of course, it does nothing to deal with the problems in further education, which also need our attention to develop the skills of our people.
Even the Minister suggested that he could not explain why 57 per cent.—[Interruption.] I repeat the figure, if I may, over the hubbub.

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to make what will probably be my last intervention. May we have a statement clearly on the record: would a future Labour Government abolish the loans and return the value to a full level of grant—yes or no?

Mr. Davies: I sought to point out to the Minister earlier that we are addressing the debate to the proposals of the Government.[Interruption.] We are in the process of developing clearly—[Interruption.] Let me commend to Conservative Members for bed-time reading the extremely well thought through, well written paper by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker).

Mr. Bruce Grocott: From his vantage point of the past few years, I wonder if my hon. Friend has been able to make any assessment, as I have, of just how long it would take to repair the damage to education and to other areas that the Government have inflicted on the country in the past 15 long years? My estimate is that, even with an incoming Labour Government, it would take a little bit of time. Does he share my mathematics?

Mr. James Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you noticed that we have not been able to obtain an answer from the Labour Front Bench on the question whether a Labour Government would do away with loans?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.
The House must quieten down a little this evening.

Mr. Davies: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was referring to the Minister's astonishing statement that he though there was little wrong with circumstances in which only 43 per cent. of students entitled to take out the loan facility do so. I will tell him why such a small proportion take out a loan. It is not because they are awash with personal resources. If the Minister thinks that, it is about time that he met a few students and talked to their teachers; then he would recognise the fallacy of that position.
The reason why such a large percentage of students are not prepared to take out even the small amount of loan at present available to them is that they are, rightly, properly, judiciously and intelligently, scared of debt. They share that fear with the vast majority of our people who, once burnt, are twice shy. The Tory party must recognise that the Lawson boom of 1988, the subsequent collapse and the

development of negative equity in the housing of many of our countryment have produced in our nation a desperate concern about debt. Students come from families who are anxious about that.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: The hon. Gentleman is too craven to say what Labour party policy might be on future loans. He was about to commend the comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) who, in a paper last October, which was suppressed by the Labour party, argued that people who benefit from higher education should make some contribution towards it.
Does the hon. Gentleman also agree with his hon. Friend? On 8 November 1993, he wrote in The Times that Labour is in danger
of becoming a professional Opposition
in that it
never risks upsetting the vested interests",
and that the world of education has a right to expect politicians, particularly in the Labour party,
to show some awareness of changing realities. A responsible political party"—
which obviously the Labour party is not—
cannot hide its head in the sand.

Mr. Davies: It is a forlorn proposition for the hon. Gentleman to try to drive a wedge between my hon. Friend and me. As my hon. Friend will show in the Division Lobby tonight, he utterly detests the Government's policy and this loan system. If Tory Members will be satisfied this evening and otherwise will rest uncomfortably in their beds only by listening to a little bit of Labour party policy, let me give them some.
The Labour party—I quote no less an authority than the leader of the party—is opposed to student loans because we believe
Students should not be forced to live in poverty whilst they are studying and then carry a heavy burden of debt with them for years afterwards.
The student loans policy is clearly failing and damaging students' ability to study in the process.
Every member of the Labour party shares that belief. None of tonight's interventions and the gloss that the Minister put on student loans will convince us otherwise.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that the Labour party would do away with student loans but not give any additional grant?

Mr. Davies: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but unless I am greatly mistaken, I gave way to him earlier in my all too short speech. I therefore did not consider that I would be regarded as behaving excessively discourteous if, on this occasion, I did not give way to him again.Tonight, the House has had the opportunity—
It being half-past Eleven o'clock MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure))—

The House divided: Ayes 276, Notes 305

Division No. 84]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Alton, David


Adams, Mrs Irene
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)


Ainger, Nick
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Armstrong, Hilary


Allen, Graham
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy






Austin-Walker, John
Fraser, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fyfe, Maria


Barnes, Harry
Gapes, Mike


Barron, Kevin
Garrett, John


Battle, John
George, Bruce


Bayley, Hugh
Gerrard, Neil


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Beggs, Roy
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Godsiff, Roger


Bell, Stuart
Golding, Mrs Llin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gordon, Mildred


Bennett, Andrew F.
Gould, Bryan


Benton, Joe
Graham, Thomas


Bermingham, Gerald
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Betts, Clive
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Blair, Tony
Grocott, Bruce


Blunkett, David
Gunnell, John


Boyes, Roland
Hain, Peter


Bradley, Keith
Hall, Mike


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hanson, David


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hardy, Peter


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Harvey, Nick


Burden, Richard
Henderson, Doug


Byers, Stephen
Heppell, John


Caborn, Richard
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Callaghan, Jim
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hoey, Kate


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hood, Jimmy


Canavan, Dennis
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cann, Jamie
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hoyle, Doug


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clapham, Michael
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hutton, John


Clelland, David
Illsley, Eric


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Ingram, Adam


Coffey, Ann
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cohen, Harry
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Connarty, Michael
Jamieson, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cummings, John
Jowell, Tessa


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)


Dafis, Cynog
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Darling, Alistair
Khabra, Piara S.


Davidson, Ian
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Hdge H'l)
Leighton, Ron


Denham, John
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dewar, Donald
Lewis, Terry


Dixon, Don
Litherland, Robert


Dobson, Frank
Livingstone, Ken


Donohoe, Brian H.
Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)


Dowd, Jim
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McAllion, John


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McAvoy, Thomas


Eagle, Ms Angela
McCartney, Ian


Eastham, Ken
McCrea, Rev William


Enright, Derek
Macdonald, Calum


Etherington, Bill
McFall, John


Fatchett, Derek
McGrady, Eddie


Faulds, Andrew
McKelvey, William


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fisher, Mark
McLeish, Henry


Flynn, Paul
Maclennan, Robert


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McMaster, Gordon


Foster, Don (Bath)
McNamara, Kevin


Foulkes, George
McWilliam, John





Madden, Max
Rooker, Jeff


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Rooney, Terry


Mahon, Alice
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Mallon, Seamus
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Mandelson, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Marek, Dr John
Ruddock, Joan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Salmond, Alex


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Martlew, Eric
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maxton, John
Short, Clare


Meacher, Michael
Simpson, Alan


Meale, Alan
Skinner, Dennis


Michael, Alun
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Milburn, Alan
Snape, Peter


Miller, Andrew
Soley, Clive


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Spearing, Nigel


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Spellar, John


Morgan, Rhodri
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Morley, Elliot
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Mowlam, Marjorie
Stevenson, George


Mudie, George
Stott, Roger


Mullin, Chris
Straw, Jack


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


O'Hara, Edward
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Olner, William
Tipping, Paddy


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Dennis


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tyler, Paul


Parry, Robert
Vaz, Keith


Patchett, Terry
Viggers, Peter


Pendry, Tom
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Pickthall, Colin
Wallace, James


Pike, Peter L.
Walley, Joan


Pope, Greg
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wareing, Robert N


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Watson, Mike


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Welsh, Andrew


Prescott, John
Wicks, Malcolm


Purchase, Ken
Wigley, Dafydd


Quin, Ms Joyce
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Radice, Giles
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Randall, Stuart
Wilson, Brian


Raynsford, Nick
Winnick, David


Redmond, Martin
Wise, Audrey


Reid, Dr John
Worthington, Tony


Rendel, David
Wray, Jimmy


Richardson, Jo
Wright, Dr Tony


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)



Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Mr. Matthew Taylor and Ms Liz Lynne.


Rogers, Allan





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Aitken, Jonathan
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Alexander, Richard
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Booth, Hartley


Amess, David
Boswell, Tim


Ancram, Michael
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Arbuthnot, James
Bowden, Andrew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowis, John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Ashby, David
Brandreth, Gyles


Aspinwall, Jack
Brazier, Julian


Atkins, Robert
Bright, Graham


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Baldry, Tony
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Burns, Simon


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butcher, John


Bates, Michael
Butler, Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Butterfill, John


Bellingham, Henry
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bendall, Vivian
Carrington, Matthew






Carttiss, Michael
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Cash, William
Gorst, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Churchill, Mr
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clappison, James
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Coe, Sebastian
Hague, William


Colvin, Michael
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Congdon, David
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Conway, Derek
Hampson, Dr Keith


Coombs, Anthony (Wyrg For'st)
Hannam, Sir John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Harris, David


Cormack, Patrick
Haselhurst, Alan


Couchman, James
Hawkins, Nick


Cran, James
Hawksley, Warren


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hayes, Jerry


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Heald, Oliver


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hendry, Charles


Day, Stephen
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Devlin, Tim
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Horam, John


Dicks, Terry
Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Dorrell, Stephen
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Dover, Den
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Duncan, Alan
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Dunn, Bob
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Dykes, Hugh
Hunter, Andrew


Eggar, Tim
Jack, Michael


Elletson, Harold
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Jenkin, Bernard 


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Jessel, Toby


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Evennett, David
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Faber, David
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Key, Robert


Fenner, Dame Peggy
King, Rt Hon Tom


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Fishburn, Dudley
Knapman, Roger


Forman, Nigel
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Forth, Eric
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Knox, Sir David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


French, Douglas
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fry, Sir Peter
Legg, Barry


Gale, Roger
Leigh, Edward


Gallie, Phil
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Gardiner, Sir George
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Lidington, David


Garnier, Edward
Lightbown, David


Gill, Christopher
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Gillan, Cheryl
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Luff, Peter


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
MacGregor, Rt Hon John





Maclean, David
Shersby, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sims, Roger


Madel, Sir David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maitland, Lady Olga
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Malone, Gerald
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mans, Keith
Soames, Nicholas


Marland, Paul
Speed, Sir Keith


Mariow, Tony
Spencer, Sir Derek


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spink, Dr Robert


Mates, Michael
Spring, Richard


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Sproat, Iain


Merchant, Piers
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Milligan, Stephen
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mills, Iain
Steen, Anthony


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stephen, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Stem, Michael


Moate, Sir Roger
Stewart, Allan


Monro, Sir Hector
Streeter, Gary


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Sweeney, Walter


Moss, Malcolm
Sykes, John


Needham, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Nicholls, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thomason, Roy


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Norris, Steve
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Thumham, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Ottaway, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Page, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Paice, James
Tredinnick, David


Patnick, Irvine
Trend, Michael


Patten, Rt Hon John
Trotter, Neville


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pawsey, James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Pickles, Eric
Walden, George


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Waller, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Ward, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Powell, William (Corby)
Waterson, Nigel


Rathbone, Tim
Watts, John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


Ronton, Rt Hon Tim
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Richards, Rod
Whitney, Ray


Riddick, Graham
Whittingdale, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Robathan, Andrew
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wilkinson, John


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Willetts, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wilshire, David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wolfson, Mark


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wood, Timothy


Sackville, Tom
Yeo, Tim


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas



Shaw, David (Dover)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Andrew Mackay.


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Question accordingly negatived.

PETITION

Commercial Products (Animal Testing)

Mrs. Angela Knight: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of many of my constituents who consider that certain goods sold in shops should be labelled in such a way that those who purchase them know whether they have been tested on animals. The petition contains 3,333 signatures, and declares
that there should be mandatory labelling of all cosmetic, household and garden products with the letters TA or NTA, to show to the consumer whether a product has been tested on animals, or not tested on animals. (Ingredients or finished products since 1987).
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons allows debate and free vote in Parliament on this matter.
They trust that their petition will be given careful and
sympathetic consideration.

To lie upon the Table.

Bank of England (Supervision)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Mr. William Powell: The House will recall that, on 6 May 1992, the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who I am delighted to see in the House tonight and who will endeavour, with my encouragement, to catch the Chair's eye before the Minister replies, in Hansard at columns 113–16, raised the disturbing case of Mr. Joseph. At the time, I knew nothing about the matter, but was naturally interested in what the hon. Gentleman had to say. I was lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and followed the hon. Gentleman in that debate, which was on the Loyal Address. I started my remarks by expressing the hope that matters raised by the hon. Gentleman would be thoroughly investigated.
In the circumstances, I had expected that Barclays bank, conscious of my remarks and those of the hon. Gentleman, would have sought to reassure me almost at once. In fact, no notice whatsoever was taken of what the hon. Gentleman had to say. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that what is said in this House should be taken very seriously—not only by Ministers of the Crown, but by other relevant bodies affected or involved in parliamentary observations.
Accordingly, with no sign at all that Barclays was intending to take the hon. Gentleman's remarks seriously —save that it took the ruthless action of seeking summary judgment against Mr. Joseph on the very next day—I wrote to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade, the then Governor of the Bank of England, and others implicated in the hon. Gentleman's remarks, seeking assurances that appropriate action was in fact being taken.
The Governor replied on 25 June 1992. The banking ombudsman sent me a typically unhelpful reply on 11 June 1992. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote to me personally on 28 July 1992, and the noble Baroness, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, on 27 June 1992. I understand that Mr. Joseph, concerned at the cavalier way in which the serious—and as we now know, restrained and understated—remarks by the hon. Member for Stockton, North, had been ignored, also wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
I am quite satisfied that all the replies received were drafted and signed in good faith. Information had been sought—ultimately from Barclays bank—and I was to be reassured by the fact that judgment had been obtained against Mr. Joseph. Unofficial word was also passed to me that nobody was to take seriously what the hon. Member for Stockton, North had said, because he was a person of no importance. I could be satisfied, therefore, that matters were properly under control.
In the light of subsequent developments, those replies to which I have referred are completely ludicrous. The observations about the hon. Gentleman could have been flippant, or arrogant, but they were certainly inappropriate. What is said in this House by any Member deserves far greater responsible consideration than that given to the speech of the hon. Gentleman on 6 May 1992. Indeed, he had been brushed aside in a wholly insulting way—a matter which I regard as disgraceful.
I say "ludicrous", because subsequent court decisions have all, including in the Court of Appeal, been in favour of Mr. Joseph, and judicial observations about the conduct of Barclays bank have been most unflattering. Nevertheless, no effort has been made by any of those to whom I wrote to correct the situation or to look at it again. In particular, the Bank of England, with its statutory responsibility for the supervision of this country's banking system, could and should have re-approached me to assure me that, in the changed situation that was unfolding, neither it nor I could rely on the then Governor's letter of 25 June 1992; that it was now reviewing the situation and would be in touch again when appropriate.
The Bank was first made aware of what I can only describe as a very considerable scandal in September 1991. The speech of the hon. Member for Stockton North, plus my letter, together with many articles in the financial and other press, should have made it alert to allegations of serious wrongdoing, including breach of trust, deception, blackmail, and the theft of intellectual property.
During my years in the House, I have devoted considerable time and energy to fighting the pirates and thieves of intellectual property, most particularly in computer software. I declare an interest as a determined opponent of all who steal the intellectual property of others. Not the least of the reasons why I have followed up the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockton, North is that I am confident that Barclays bank appropriated the property of Mr. Joseph—the rabbit logo—and that that constitutes as serious a breach of copyright law, so extensive has it been, as has occurred in this country during the 20th century.
I am conscious of the seriousness of what I have just asserted, but I have considerable experience in the field, and it is for that reason that I am so disturbed—as should be the Bank of England, together with the shareholders and depositors of Barclays bank. Subsequently, Barclays tried to cover up the serious illegality and applied grossly improper pressure to hide the truth. In short, the bank tried to crush Mr. Joseph to ensure that he could not recover his position.
In this unworthy campaign, leading officials of Barclays bank and of its solicitors, Slaughter and May, have played their role to the hilt by preventing any investigation of the substantial claims made in the hon. Gentleman's speech of 6 May 1992, and by trying to strangle Mr. Joseph in a series of tangles of preliminary matters. A combination of futile legal actions—all doomed to failure—together with messages to me that Mr. Joseph was a vexatious litigant, that he is a maverick, that he is not to be trusted and, indeed, not quite straight, have all the hallmarks of a most discreditable campaign.
For completeness, may I say that the hon. Member for Stockton, North also raised the matter in the House during the debate on the Loyal Address in November 1993. As a result, the Bank of England was sufficiently interested to convene a meeting with Mr. Joseph on 11 November 1993. The meeting was attended by Carol Sergeant, deputy head of supervision of the high street banks; Kevin Ryan, deputy head of the supervision department in charge of Barclays bank; an analyst, two lawyers and Mr. Ian Watt, the head of the serious investigation unit of the Bank of England. I have no information about the investigations of Mr. Joseph's complaints, but Mr. Ryan asked at the meeting for extra evidence so that he could add it, as he put it, to the "mounting pile" on his desk.
In the circumstances, I had expected the Bank of England to be more concerned. The allegations, clear enough, related to one of the major British banks, the reputation of which is of the greatest importance to this country. It could not be in the nation's interests, or that of Barclays—both shareholders and depositors—that the claims remain unresolved for any period, yet a smoking gun has now been active for two years.
The Bank of England chooses to exercise its responsibilities under the law in relation to the banking system by what can be described only as informal nods and winks. No doubt there are some advantages in such an approach. However, it means that rarely, if ever, are statutory powers invoked, and the true meaning and scope of the Banking Supervision Act is untested in the courts.
Whatever may or may not have been done by the Bank of England remains a secret and whatever intervention it may have made to resolve a most unsatisfactory situation have undoubtedly been ineffective. As I have already made clear, I regard its slackness in handling complaints by me as particularly unfortunate.
The House will have noted the recent observation by the Governor about the need for an ombudsman. Apart from the fact that there is already such an official, the new initiative will rightly draw public interest. I praise the Governor's initiative. Having started his career and been in the position for some months, he has made a promising start to his duties as Governor and is securing a wide degree of confidence across the system.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will draw to the attention of the Governor the fact that what is really required is a conciliation service, so that disputes can be resolved early and quickly without unnecessary recourse to law.
No doubt the whole case has already earned lawyers —I am a lawyer, although I have not practised for nearly eight years—a handsome sum, and they view the prospect of further litigation with financial enthusiasm. However, there are better uses for their talents and the public interest would be better served by procedures designed to resolve complaints of substance, rather than by the casual manipulation of endless preliminary points. Such tactics reflect little credit on those who instruct or those who pursue such instructions. I hope that Mr. George's new ideas will be given a fair wind and that he will seek a wide range of comment and consideration.
Over the past couple of years or so, I have wondered whether either the Bank of England or Barclays bank has been capable of coming to grips with the situation. Mr. Joseph has been derided as cheeky, a mischievous gadfly, fundamentally unserious and deserving of little attention or significance. Slowly, it has dawned on those who have wronged him that their preconceived prejudices may have considerably underestimated his talents.
In recent weeks, an immense amount of management time in Barclays bank has been spent in trying to resolve the position. The former chief executive, Mr. Andrew Buxton, had two private meetings with Mr. Joseph, and his successor, Mr. Martin Taylor, had two meetings with Mr. Joseph before taking his present position, and one since.
One offer of settlement from Barclays bank was made, the main motive of which was to try to undermine the legal aid order which exists in Mr. Joseph's favour. In no other sense did it address the real issues at stake.
The real reason that Mr. Joseph has pursued his rights is not because he is a maverick or mischievous or any other


impertinent suggestions that have been made about his character. It is because he burns with indignation at the manner in which he has been treated.
As those who act on behalf of the bank have observed, the bank does not owe to its customers any duty not to seek to take undue advantage of its economic strength. It has no duty not to exercise economic duress or not to intimidate, propositions of law which are widely rejected in the courts and elsewhere. It is because the House would reject such appalling arrogance that I raise the matter with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Frank Cook: I apologise to the House for not having been present at the start of the speech of the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) this evening. I was delayed between the Division and start of the debate by other more pressing matters and I deeply regret that.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the fulsome praise that I managed to catch when I entered the Chamber and for affording me the opportunity to pursue again matters that I raised in the House in the spring of 1992 and the autumn of 1993.
Any study of the relevant Hansards would have made it clear that I was most concerned about serious matters which I regarded as outrageous and deserving of the most urgent Government attention. The case is unquestionably a scandal of historic proportions. The Bank of England was put on notice and, given its unique position, I contend that it was under an obligation to pursue with rigour the matters that I raised on the two occasions to which I have referred.
Lest anyone be in doubt, I remind the House that I referred to events that could legitimately be entitled a "Barclaygate". The central issue of that affair is that Barclays bank, in its position as both client and banker to Mr. Joseph's company Hook Advertising Ltd., took advantage of its dual role for the bank's own financial gain, to the serious detriment of Mr. Joseph and his company.
In its role as client, Barclays bank delayed, for many weeks, the payment to Mr. Joseph's company of more than £500,000 in fees due to that company. Not unnaturally, that caused Mr. Joseph's company severe financial problems. Then, without Mr. Joseph's knowledge, Barclays secretly handed Mr. Joseph's property—the rabbit logo, which is well known to everyone in this country—over to Hutchison Telecom as part and parcel of a secret deal with Hutchison for which Barclays undoubtedly received substantial financial reward.
As a result of that deal, Hutchison Telecom acted as though it owned the rabbit logo and then abruptly ended the advertising contract with Mr. Joseph's company which it had inherited via Barclays. That advertising contract would have provided income to Mr. Joseph's company of possibly up to £6 million had it been allowed to run its full term.
Meanwhile, in its role as banker to Mr. Joseph, Barclays took advantage of that role knowing every particular of Mr. Joseph's predicament, to exert financial pressure on Mr. Joseph and his company by using the stick of threatening the immediate withdrawal of banking facilities if Mr. Joseph and his company did not execute a secret agreement with the bank. That agreement would have exonerated Barclays from all claims that Mr. Joseph and his company

had against the bank. Barclays would re-establish banking facilities provided that the agreement was not disclosed to other parties.
When Mr. Joseph refused to sign that secret gagging agreement, Barclays terminated the banking facilities and sued Mr. Joseph and his company for the overdraft—the extent of which was the result of Barclays' own doing, due to the delay in the payment of fees and the secret deal with Hutchinson Telecom. Barclays had plunged Hook into debt by non-payment of fees. It then claimed finance charges for servicing the debt that it had caused.
Barclays bank then vigorously pursued Mr. Joseph and his company through the courts for payment of the overdraft, in the full knowledge that Mr. Joseph and his company were now, as a result of Barclays' actions, destitute. To cap it all, Barclays also fails to pay £43,000 of interest due to Mr. Joseph's company while it displays Mr. Joseph's rabbit logo on all its branches throughout the United Kingdom, again for financial reward. That is incredible.
The bank is penalising Mr. Joseph for a debt that the bank incurred and it is still making a profit from his intellectual property. It is unbelievable.
The time has now come for the bank and the Treasury to pursue those matters. As the hon. Member for Corby has said, Mr. Joseph is not a maverick, he is not a vexatious litigant, and he is not eccentric, dishonest or shady. The only thing bent about Chris Joseph is the implement he wears where his right arm should be—his hook.
The best form of redress, not merely the settlement of that personal dispute, is the establishment of a genuinely independent banking dispute resolution procedure which could help to resolve the many dozens of cases that have come to light through an organisation called SAFE—the Struggle Against Financial Exploitation—which Mr. Joseph and others formed to help settle the many disagreements which bankers generally, not just Barclays, pitch straight into court, effectively clogging the litigation procedure for months or even years.
This afternoon, Barclays offered Mr. Joseph a settlement—of a kind. It told him that it is withdrawing all actions against him and is offering to pay his costs. It has not given an indication of what those costs might be. It is my firm belief and that of Mr. Joseph that that action is taken not to settle the case but simply as a means of trying to counter a counter-claim that Mr. Joseph has against the bank. That is yet another example of how the bank is using the litigation procedure to its advantage, because it holds all the cards in its hands; it has unlimited resources. That is an abuse of the system.
Mr. Joseph has presented the Economic Secretary to the Treasury with an opportunity to help to resolve not only his case but all such outstanding cases which are clogging the litigation procedures. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will offer Mr. Joseph not only his support but his gratitude by helping to establish a resolution procedure.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) have raised serious issues of banking principle and practice. I congratulate my hon. Friend on seeking and obtaining the Adjournment debate to champion once more a cause and a case for which he is well known in the House.
Indeed, the hon. Gentleman was very lucky, on 6 May 1992, that my hon. Friend spoke immediately after his speech.
The lesson is this: if hon. Members want a case to be pursued in the House, they should see whether my hon. Friend will speak in the debate, and they can be sure that it will be a runner. I therefore make no complaint about the privilege of the House being used by my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman to raise an issue and a case that is a matter of concern to them and, undoubtedly, to the principals involved.
I am sure that Mr. Joseph in particular will be grateful for the committed and conscientious way in which my hon. Friend has pursued the case over many months. FIe will know that I have been involved in the case, as he wrote to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), who charged me with the responsibility of making inquiries with Barclays bank, and I did so with the chairman. My right hon. Friend replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby.
I hope that my hon. Friend and others will understand that it is difficult and, indeed, improper for the Government to become involved in matters which are sub judice or might be potentially subject to litigation. I hope that my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman will appreciate at the outset that I cannot comment tonight on the specific dispute between Mr. Joseph and Barclays bank. It would not be right for the Government to attempt to intervene in an individual dispute, and, as my right hon. Friend the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer and my officials have made clear in previous correspondence, especially when matters are before the courts, as my hon. Friend has explained is the situation in this case.
However, it is proper for me to discuss the Bank of England's role in supervising banks—which is relevant to this and many other cases—the steps that have been taken to improve relations between the banks and with their business customers, and the recourse that is available if those relations break down. I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. As hon. Members will know, that was one issue covered by the Governor in his speech to the Scottish CBI and Scottish Enterprise on Monday evening; he spoke of the need for greater understanding on the part of both borrowers and lenders of each other's concerns and points of view.
Let me begin by explaining the legislative background. Parliament has given the Bank of England responsibility for authorising banks, under the Banking Act 1987. The legislation sets out specific criteria for authorisation, which include capital adequacy, and the need to ensure that a bank is run prudently and is controlled and managed by fit and proper persons. The Bank's two main supervisory concerns are to safeguard the interests of depositors, and to maintain the stability and soundness of the United Kingdom banking system. But—and the qualification is an important one—the Bank's responsibility for ensuring that those concerns are met does not extend to the monitoring of individual commercial decisions, or to involving itself in the day-to-day services that banks provide.
In passing the legislation, Parliament acknowledged the principle that commercial banks—we should never forget that banks are commercial institutions—must be left free to make their own business decisions. The Act does not give

the Bank the power to intervene in individual cases, or to question commercial decisions that banks make in their normal dealings with their customers.
As a number of commentators have observed, the Bank's traditional techniques of supervision have served the country well. The continuing success of London as a leading international centre for financial services testifies that lenders and borrowers from many parts of the world consider the supervisory regime that we operate here to be conducive to the development of lasting and mutually beneficial banking relationships. In particular, I do not think that the case has been made for the Bank, or any other statutory body, to move into the area of hands on regulation of banking services.
That does not, of course, mean that the Government are indifferent to the way in which banks treat their customers; quite the reverse. Relations between banks and their customers—not least small business customers such as Mr. Joseph—have been the subject of a good deal of public debate and interest in the past two or three years. That interest twice led my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, to ask the Bank of England to investigate the banks' treatment of their business customers—once in 1991, and again at the end of 1992.
Those inquiries led, in the first instance, to the major banks introducing codes of practice governing their relationships with their business customers and, in the other, to the banks extending the banking ombudsman scheme to small business customers with an annual turnover of less than £1 million. I think that these measures represent a public recognition by the banks not only that fair and reasonable treatment of customers is importantt in itself, but that it helps them to build up and maintain mutually profitable business relationships.
The reaction by small business representatives to the Governor's speech on Monday night has given further support to the view that relations are continuing to improve —although I acknowledge that there is still more to be done, and that more lessons must be learnt on both sides.
The banks' codes also make specific reference to the complaints procedure available to customers when things go wrong. The bank chairmen have made it clear that they take complaints from customers very seriously. Many have established special complaints units, and the chairmen and their chief executives review a large number of cases personally. When these procedures do not resolve a problem, customers have recourse to the banking ombudsman—for issues within his range of competence—or to the courts.
However, with the best will in the world, problems will remain. I hope that nothing that I have said tonight implies that the banks or the representatives of business are at all complacent about these issues, or that I am. As I go about the country—part of the industrial finance initiative involves me in examining, specifically and regionally, relationships between small businesses and banks throughout the country—I am very conscious of the problems that recur from time to time. I receive representations about those problems, and occasionally exhort commercial banks to do something about them; I hope and believe that those exhortations have some effect.
The work of the Governor of the Bank of England is taking forward in this area and the further meetings between the banks and representative bodies which he mentioned in his speech will no doubt help. I have no doubt


that that theme will continue to feature heavily in the initiative, and the Government's officials as well as those in the Bank will continue to look for ways in which communications and education can be made more effective.
The basis of an effective and enduring relationship between banks and their business customers is, I believe, beginning to emerge. It is based on transparency and on a mutual understanding of the constraints on both sides, features which my hon. Friend was good enough to refer to in his speech. However, that relationship is a dynamic one and, of course, there is still room for improvement by both borrowers and lenders.
It is not for the Government to tell commercial undertakings how to run their businesses, but I believe that there is scope for the banks to build on the steps outlined

in their codes and to be more open about what they expect of their customers and what their customers can expect of them. I think that more and more bankers believe that, too, but businesses themselves, particularly smaller ones, also have a role to play. They must be more willing to discuss with their banks, well in advance and in terms which can be clearly understood, the problems and opportunities that they foresee. Together, they can build a relationship that will bring benefits, not only to banks and small businesses but to the wider economy on which they, and all of us, depend.
If tonight's debate on a specific case is successful in moving towards that objective, I think that the cause will have been well served by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and the hon. Member for Stockton, North, who have spoken with such distinction tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past twelve o'clock.